Tony Muman of Halcyon Chambers has successfully represented a vulnerable appellant before the First-tier Tribunal in an appeal concerning the risk of serious harm from illegal moneylenders, securing the appeal on Humanitarian Protection and Article 3 ECHR grounds.
The appeal concerned a national of Vietnam who had become indebted to illegal moneylenders and was subsequently subjected to threats, violence and intimidation as part of efforts to recover the debt.
Following her departure from Vietnam, the appellant travelled through China and France. It was accepted by the Home Office that she had been trafficked and sexually exploited in France before escaping and ultimately travelling to the United Kingdom. Her trafficking history and resulting vulnerability were important features of the case.
Significant aspects of the appellant’s account had been accepted by the Home Office. The principal issues before the Tribunal were whether those pursuing the debt retained a continuing interest in locating and pursuing her, whether sufficient state protection would be available and whether she could safely and reasonably relocate elsewhere in Vietnam.
The Appeal
The appeal involved a substantial body of documentary and country evidence. This included the loan agreement, medical and photographic evidence, police summonses, witness evidence, video footage and material demonstrating continuing attempts to locate the appellant.
Of particular significance were “wanted” posters publicly identifying the appellant and her former husband as individuals with respect to the debt who had absconded from repayment of the debt. The Tribunal accepted that these provided evidence of active attempts to locate and place pressure upon them.
The Judge also placed significant weight on video footage showing men attending a family property and aggressively demanding repayment from a woman said to be the appellant’s mother, with threats being made in the course of the encounter. The Tribunal found that the footage provided strong corroboration that the lenders remained actively interested in recovering the debt and continued to harass the appellant’s family years after she had left Vietnam.
The Tribunal accepted that the appellant had been subjected to violence and intimidation as part of efforts to recover the debt, and that her family continued to experience threats and harassment because the debt remained outstanding.
The evidence was also consistent with methods employed by illegal moneylenders, including public shaming, exposure and the harassment of family members as forms of coercion. The Tribunal accepted that information concerning the appellant and the debt had been publicised both physically and electronically, including through wanted posters and social media exposure, in an effort to locate her and secure repayment.
State Protection and Internal Relocation
Although Vietnam has measures in place to combat illegal moneylending, the Tribunal found that effective protection would not be available to this appellant. Importantly, the Judge accepted her evidence that she had previously sought assistance from the authorities but had received no meaningful support.
Internal relocation was also rejected. The lenders had demonstrated a sustained determination to locate the appellant, had targeted members of her family and had continued pursuing repayment over a number of years. The debt remains outstanding, providing a continuing reason for the lenders to pursue her.
The country evidence further recognised that some illegal moneylenders may possess regional or national reach and may continue pursuing debtors beyond their original locality. The Tribunal found that this was a case involving a continuing and persistent adverse interest, rather than a localised dispute which would simply disappear if the appellant moved elsewhere.
The Tribunal also noted that internal movement within Vietnam is not entirely anonymous, this increased the risk that the appellant could ultimately be traced.
Her accepted trafficking history, vulnerability as a woman returning alone, outstanding debt, social media exposure and the continuing efforts to trace her were also material considerations.
The Tribunal found that there remained a real risk that the appellant would be located and subjected to serious harm in the proposed area of relocation. It further found that, having regard to her individual circumstances, it would not be reasonable to expect her to relocate internally and that internal relocation was therefore not available to her.
Taking the evidence cumulatively, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant remained at a real risk of serious harm/ill-treatment on return, that there would not be sufficient state protection and that internal relocation was not a viable option.
The appeal was therefore allowed on Humanitarian Protection grounds and, alternatively, under Article 3 ECHR.
Tony Muman heads Halcyon Chambers’ Immigration and Public Law team.
For instructions or further information regarding Tony Muman’s immigration and asylum practice, please contact the clerks at Halcyon Chambers.
