A VICTORY FOR OUR CLIENT IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
Oksana Demyanchuk and her team conducted yet another successful asylum claim before the First-tier Tribunal. Our client, a Ukrainian entrepreneur, despite receiving military call-up notes requiring him to serve in the military, had evaded the draft as a conscientious objector.
Fearing that he would be sent to the frontline to serve or imprisoned for draft evasion, our client left Ukraine for the UK to claim asylum.
A conscientious objection may give rise to an asylum claim under the principle of imputed political opinion, political opinion being one of five categories that may be used to claim refugee status, the other four being race, religion, nationality, and member of a particular social group.
Initially, the Home Office refused our client’s claim for asylum and an appeal was lodged to the First-tier Tribunal. While awaiting the hearing date, our client received a court decision sentencing him to imprisonment for draft evasion. Due to the conditions of detention and imprisonment in Ukraine, which fall below the International Standards, our client further feared for his life if he was returned to Ukraine.
Due to the thorough and robust preparation and persuasive representations and bundles submitted in support of the appeal by Oksana Demyanchuk, as well as the introduction of expert evidence, it was accepted by the Immigration Judge that all of the evidence demonstrated that our client had been tried in absentia and sentenced to imprisonment. Accordingly, relying on VB and Another (draft evaders and prison conditions) Ukraine CG  UKUT 00079 (IAC), the Judge went on to find:
‘…if a draft-evader did face prosecution proceedings (…) it would be a matter for any Tribunal to consider, in the light of developing evidence, whether there were aggravating matters which might lead to imposition of an immediate custodial sentence…’
‘There is a real risk that the conditions of detention and imprisonment in Ukraine would subject a person returned to be detained or imprisoned to a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR’,
Accordingly, the Judge found that our client faces a real risk of treatment in breach of the Article 3 ECHR right(Anti-torture and inhumane treatment). Thus, the Appeal was allowed.
Asylum appeals of this nature can be very complex and the success of such and appeal can depend on the quality of representations. Therefore, we would strongly advise that any asylum seekers in the UK seek professional legal advice.
Tel. 020 7822 8535
Tel. 020 7822 8535