Immigration Law: Legal Analysis of Karim's Asylum Application in UK

This report analyzes the legal aspects of an asylum application in the United Kingdom, focusing on a case involving an individual named Karim who is seeking asylum after being hospitalized for PTSD. It explores the criteria for obtaining refugee status under the Refugee Convention, including the requirement to prove a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group, or political opinion. The report discusses the relevance of PTSD in establishing persecution and the importance of demonstrating an inability to obtain protection from one's home country. It also examines the principle of non-refoulment, which prevents the return of an individual to a country where they face persecution, even if a safe internal relocation option exists. Furthermore, the report analyzes the application of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture, inhuman treatment, and degrading punishment, and its potential role in protecting Karim from removal to Afghanistan. The report references various legal cases to support its arguments, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal considerations in asylum cases and the interplay between the Refugee Convention and the ECHR.

Running head: IMMIGRATION LAW 1
Immigration Law
Student’s Name
Institution

IMMIGRATION LAW 2
Karim is seeking asylum in United Kingdom after being hospitalized for PTSD. His act
of seeking asylum is an indication that he is fleeing from persecution or danger in Afghanistan
which is probably why he does not wish to return to his own country. In order to obtain refugee
status in United Kingdom, there are several factors that need to be verified according to article 1
(b) of Refugee Convention or he will still be retained in United Kingdom though not as a refugee
pursuant to European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR) article 3 (McAdam, 2017).
Firstly, for Karim’s application to be successful it must be verified that he was not
involved in crimes against peace, crimes contrary to the purpose and principles of United
Kingdom or crimes against acts of humanity, this is according to article 1(f) of Refugee
Convention (Ingram, 2016). Karim is also required to prove that he was persecuted in his home
country and that the persecution was among one of the five convention reasons which are
nationality, race, religion, political opinion and membership of a certain social group
(McCloskey, 2017).
Karim has been hospitalized with PTSD which could help him in proving that he has
been persecuted in his country thereby showing credibility of his persecution. However, he must
also indicate that he is not able to access protection from his own country. As a result, he cannot
return to his country due to insufficient protection against serious harm as seen in Horvath v
Secretary of State for the Home Department (2000). However, if it established that there is a
location in his country where he could relocate to in avoiding harm then the refugee status can be
denied since that location will guarantee safety as seen in Januzi and others v SSHD (2006).
Karim is likely to receive extra protection if the principle of non-refoulment is applied
whereby he cannot be returned to his country even if there is a safe location on the basis of being
liable to subjection to persecution (York, 2018). This can be seen in Qubert and others v. SSHD

IMMIGRATION LAW 3
(2012) and Shekib v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department where this principle was
invoked in retaining these individuals in the United Kingdom (Browne, 2018).
If Karim can prove credibility on the basis of being possible suspect of persecution as a
result of religion, race, social group or political opinion. He can therefore be provided with
asylum based on article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR) which forbids
torture, inhuman acts or degrading treatment and punishment (Husain, 2016). This laws not only
defend Karim from such treatments in the United Kingdom but also if the United Kingdom
considers returning Karim back to his home country, Afghanistan. Unlike the Convention
requirements this laws could be helpful especially if he cannot provide a reason for his
persecution or when he lacks a reasonable reason (Jones, 2018).

IMMIGRATION LAW 4
Reference
Browne, K. (2018). Immigration Law 2018. College of Law Publishing.
Husain, R. (2016). International Human Rights and Refugee Law: The United Kingdom.
In Human Rights and the Refugee Definition (pp. 138-155). Brill Nijhoff.
Ingram, A. (2016). Negotiating Security: Governmentality and Asylum/Immigration NGOs in
the UK. In Spaces of Security and Insecurity (pp. 145-160). Routledge.
Jones, J. (2018). The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Council of
Europe Convention on Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul
Convention). In The Legal Protection of Women From Violence (pp. 147-173).
Routledge.
McAdam, J. (2017). The enduring relevance of the 1951 refugee convention.
McCloskey, B. (2017). Third-Country Refugees: The Dublin Regulation/Article 8 ECHR
Interface and Judicial Remedies. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(4), 641-654.
York, S. (2018). Can only victims win? –how UK immigration law has moved from
consideration of rights and entitlements to assertions of vulnerability.