THOUSANDS of failed Zimbabwean asylum-seekers face being deported home after a landmark ruling yesterday that they are not automatically at risk of persecution there.

The first batch of Zimbabweans could be forced to leave by the end of the month after the Home Office vowed to begin moves to deport them.

Failed asylum-seekers who are forcibly removed to Zimbabwe will each receive cash and other assistance amounting to £500 to help them to resettle. The deal, designed to encourage people to leave, will last initially for six months. Mr Justice Hodge, president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, provided John Reid, the Home Secretary, with the means to resume forced removals when he said that there was not an automatic risk that Zimbabweans returned to Harare would face “a real risk of being subjected to persecution or serious ill treatment”. He said: “Each case must be considered on its own facts.”

Mr Justice Hodge said that being a white Zimbabwean did not by itself put an applicant in danger. The judge set out several caveats on his ruling under which deportees could be at risk in Zimbabwe. Those linked with Zimbabwean opposition parties or who have military or criminal records may be in greater danger, the ruling said.

The ruling, in an appeal by an asylum-seeker known only as AA, said: “If the reason for suspicion is that the deportee has a political profile considered to be adverse to the Zimbabwean regime, that is likely to be sufficient to give rise to a real risk of persecutory ill- treatment for a reason that is recognised by the Refugee Convention.

“That will not necessarily be the case where the only matter of interest is a relevant military history or outstanding criminal issues.” There was not a real risk of persecution simply because Zimbabweans had been returned from Britain.

In hearings last year Mark Henderson, of the Refugee Legal Centre, who represented AA, said that asylum-seekers sent back by Britain were considered traitors and Blair’s spies by President Mugabe’s regime.

The latest ruling found that the “extremely difficult” conditions in Zimbabwe were generally not sufficiently severe to prevent deportation.

Deportations were halted last year after the tribunal ruled that Zimbabwe was unsafe for failed asylum-seekers. In April the High Court ordered the tribunal to reconsider its decision. Between 2000 and 2005 about 15,000 Zimbabweans sought asylum in Britain, only a few hundred of whom were granted refugee status.

Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, said after the judgment: “Enforcing the return of those who have no right to remain here is a key part of upholding a robust and fair asylum system. We recognise that there are Zimbabweans who are in genuine fear of persecution and that is why we have granted them asylum, but it is only right that we remove those who seek to abuse our hospitality.”

In the first three months of this year there were 755 new asylum applications from Zimbabwe. Between July 2005 and April 2006 there were 595 initial asylum decisions but only 55 received refugee status.





MAN IN THE MIDDLE

April 8, 1975 The man at the centre of the ruling, known only as AA, born in Zimbabwe November 6, 2002 Arrives in London via South Africa and France. Given temporary admission, but fails to keep to conditions of entry and absconds.

June 2005 Comes to attention of police. Initially gives name and address of brother. Later admits true identity and is detained.

June 20, 2005 Claims asylum.

June 25, 2005 Interviewed. Claims to have been opposition activist in Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe, but had not said this five days earlier. Gives wrong name for vice-president of MDC and is unable to name accurately any member of its cabinet or say what MDC stands for.

July 27, 2005 Asylum claim rejected on grounds that it was “fraudulent” in its substantive parts and AA had been “dishonest “ in almost all his dealings with UK authorities.

August 2006 Appeal on asylum and human rights grounds dismissed.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones