Divorced women- illegitimate children: Bangladesh asylum claim
SA (Bangladesh) vs. Secretary of State for Home Department [2011]
This Upper Tribunal case was heard at Field House on the 29th and 30th of September 2010. The appeal was brought by a Bangladeshi national against a decision that she should not be granted asylum. Her application was initially rejected by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (herein after referred to as the SSHD). She appealed against the decision and her case came before the Tribunal where it was subsequently dismissed.
The appellant had arrived in the UK on 2nd November 2002 and in 2004, she was granted leave to remain as the dependant of her husband who was in the UK on a student visa. She applied for further leave in the same capacity in 2006. However, she left her husband and returned to Bangladesh. She thereafter applied to return to the UK on a student visa which was refused. She returned back to the UK but was advised at port that her student dependant visa had been cancelled because she was separated from her husband. However, she was granted temporary admission. She then appealed against the refusal of her student visa application which was dismissed. The appellant claimed asylum at this point. Her appeal was initially heard in September 2009.
The senior immigration judge reconsidered the appellant’s case based on the reason that the previous immigration judge (IJ) who dismissed her appeal at the previous hearing had failed to review both grounds of the appellant’s argument adequately.
In regard to the second ground of appeal, the judge said that the IJ’s decision failed to properly consider the evidence put before him in regards to the treatment the appellant would face in Bangladesh as a result of bearing a child out of wedlock.
The judge agreed that the previous judge did use the correct factual basis in paragraph 12 of his determination and in which consideration was given to the fact that the appellant was a single divorced female who had a child who was dependent on her out of wedlock. The judge also explored the general background material and drew a distinction between how the appellant would be dealt with in her home area in Bangladesh in comparison to how she might be dealt with in a rural city. However, it was held that the previous judge did not attach appropriate weight to the background material. It was concluded that laws prohibiting discrimination could not be thoroughly enforced in the rural or urban areas.
The appellant argued that removal to Bangladesh would violate article 3 of the ECHR.
With regard to the evidence put forward by both the appellant’s representative and the SSHD, the Immigration judge concluded that the mother of an illegitimate child would be likely to experience a significant amount of hardship on return to Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepted that there is a high level of domestic violence in Bangladesh and that mothers of illegitimate children may face social prejudice but concluded that each case needed to be considered on its own merits.
The Tribunal accepted that there would be circumstances where mothers of illegitimate children would face a ‘significant degree of hardship’. However, each case needed to be considered on its individual merits. It was recognised that with family support, individuals could attain employment within the garment trade and could obtain ‘rudimentary’ support from the State. In this case, the Tribunal took the view that the conditions the appellant would face on return to Bangladesh would not breach her article 3 rights.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
July 2011