Sonya Kalyan recently successfully represented a Namibian national before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in Newport.  This blog highlights the importance of robust legal argument and thorough case preparation in asylum appeals.

Sonya was instructed in this matter by Migrant Legal Project, a specialist organisation dedicated to providing expert legal advice and representation to vulnerable migrants, including asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and those facing removal from the UK.  Their tireless commitment to access to justice for those in need was instrumental in achieving this positive outcome.

Background

The Appellant, referred to as ZVR due to an anonymity order, is a Namibian national who sought asylum in the UK.  She made her initial asylum application on 20 December 2022, which was refused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) on 9 January 2024.  Because ZVR’s application was made after 28 June 2022, it was considered under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA 2022), which introduced significant changes to the asylum framework, including a two-stage test for assessing refugee status.

ZVR’s claim was based on her fear of persecution due to her experiences as a victim of gender-based violence (GBV) and the systemic failures of the Namibian state to provide sufficient protection.

The appeal was heard on 7 March 2025 before First-tier Tribunal Judge Boyes, with the SSHD as the Respondent.

The Legal Framework

The appeal was considered under the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002 and the NABA Act 2022. The key legal issues were:

• Whether ZVR’s claim fell within the scope of the Refugee Convention.
• Whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (namely, membership of a particular social group).
• Whether there was a sufficiency of protection in Namibia.
• Whether internal relocation was a viable option.

The Tribunal’s considerations and findings

The Tribunal noted that while the SSHD conceded ZVR’s nationality and the fact that she had suffered GBV, she did not accept that ZVR was claiming asylum for a Convention reason.  Specifically, the SSHD argued that women in Namibia do not form a Particular Social Group (PSG) under the Refugee Convention, relying on their Country Policy and Information Note (CPIN).  The SSHD argued that while ZVR was a victim of domestic violence, this alone did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason.

Sonya robustly argued against this position, submitting that ZVR possessed an innate characteristic beyond simply being a woman.  She was not only a woman but a victim of severe domestic and sexual violence in a society that does not provide adequate protection for such victims; highlighting that ZVR’s status as a survivor of GBV, combined with cultural and legal norms in Namibia, meant that she belonged to a PSG.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that ZVR’s experiences and the societal context in which they occurred established her membership of a PSG under the Refugee Convention, relying on jurisprudence such as Islam and Shah [1999] UKHL 20.

Sonya went on to argue, relying on expert evidence, that there is no sufficiency of protection in Namibia.  The expert report detailed how the dual judicial system, which includes both state and traditional courts, often results in GBV cases being treated as private matters, leaving victims without recourse.  It also outlined the significant cultural barriers preventing women from seeking protection, including societal norms that reinforce male dominance and discourage intervention by law enforcement.

The Tribunal accepted that, despite the existence of legal protections on paper, the reality was that state authorities failed to provide effective protection for victims of GBV in Namibia.

Sonya went on to argue that internal relocation was not a viable option for ZVR.  Namibia’s small population, the interconnected nature of Herero communities, and the cultural expectation that a woman remains under her husband’s control meant that relocation would not be safe or reasonable.

Again, the Tribunal accepted this argument, noting that ZVR’s former husband had a wide network and worked in transport across Namibia, making it highly likely that he would find her if she attempted to relocate.

Outcome and significance

The Tribunal allowed ZVR’s appeal on asylum grounds, granting her refugee status.  The appeal on humanitarian protection grounds was not necessary to consider as ZVR had succeeded in establishing a Refugee Convention claim.

This judgment reaffirms the importance of detailed factual development, use of expert evidence, and focused legal submissions in asylum jurisprudence.  It also underscores the barriers faced by women experiencing GBV in jurisdictions where societal and legal frameworks fail to offer genuine protection, and the UK’s duty to afford international protection to those at risk.

Sonya accepts instructions across all areas of immigration and asylum law.  To instruct her, please contact the immigration clerk.