Vargas, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Persecution for a Convention reason requires conduct directed against a person because of membership of a protected social group. A family may constitute such a group, but an approach to individual family members to obtain information about another person does not, without more, establish persecution of the family or group. Relevant considerations include whether there is a campaign against the group and whether the conduct is directed at group membership rather than at obtaining information about a particular individual.

The claimant, a Colombian national, sought asylum in the United Kingdom. An adjudicator refused her appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum after proceeding in her absence. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused leave to appeal on the substantive issue after considering a further statement, and the Administrative Court, before Poole J, refused permission for judicial review.

The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court assumed the facts in her further statement and the absence of effective state protection. The central issue was whether threats and approaches made to her and to a cousin, allegedly to discover the whereabouts of her former partner, amounted to persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review.
2. A family is capable of constituting a particular social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. The court accepted the definition of social group referred to in Shahana Sadiq Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] Imm App R 283.
3. The assumed facts did not establish persecution of the claimant because of group membership. Only the claimant and her cousin had been approached. There was no systematic attempt to approach the family as a whole, including the claimant’s brother and grandmother.
4. More fundamentally, the approaches were made to obtain information about the whereabouts of the claimant’s former partner. They were not conduct forming a campaign against the family or another social group. The facts therefore did not permit a finding of persecution for a Convention reason.
5. Lord Justices Mummery and Latham agreed with Lord Justice Pill. An order for assessment was made in respect of the claimant’s publicly funded representation.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review.
• Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Poole J refused permission on 10 October 2001.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: refused leave to appeal on 3 January 2001 after considering the claimant’s further statement.
• Adjudicator: dismissed the asylum appeal, with the decision made known on 6 December 2000.