Court of Appeal clarifies credibility standards in political asylum claims: MH (Bangladesh) v SSHD

In the recent case of MH (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) addressed a significant asylum claim concerning alleged persecution based on political affiliations. The ruling will have far-reaching implications for the assessment of evidence and potential risks encountered by asylum seekers involved in political activities. The Appellant, MH, fled Bangladesh in January 2017 with his family, seeking safety in the United Kingdom after facing increased scrutiny from authorities due to his political ties with the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), which opposes the ruling Awami League.

MH initially applied for asylum based on claims that his political activism attracted attention upon his return to Bangladesh following a meeting with a notable political figure. However, his claims were dismissed by the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT), which concluded that he lacked sufficient evidence regarding the scrutiny and possible retribution he faced as a political activist. This determination categorised him as a "low-level" supporter of the BNP and led to a rejection of his asylum request. The Upper Tribunal (UT) subsequently upheld the FTT’s decision, raising questions about the credibility of MH’s accounts, particularly the evidence of surveillance he faced.

During the recent appeal, Lord Justice Arnold underscored the importance of evaluating the standards of proof required in asylum cases. He pointed out that although the required standard is lower than the balance of probabilities, applicants must still provide credible evidence supporting their claims of risk. It became evident that merely holding dissenting views against the Bangladeshi government was inadequate to demonstrate any genuine risk of persecution upon return.

A critical aspect of the case involved MH’s so-called sur place claims, which included evidence of his political activities in the UK. This raised crucial questions about whether Bangladeshi authorities might be aware of such activities and how they would interpret them as acts of political opposition. Judge Cary’s remark was emphasised, noting that involvement in protests or social media does not inherently signify an individual would face risks on returning home unless substantive evidence exists that these actions have attracted surveillance scrutiny in Bangladesh.

The Court of Appeal highlighted the necessity of treating evidence related to political activity with “anxious scrutiny.” Many asylum applicants potentially face difficulties in presenting a consistent narrative, often due to the trauma experienced in their home countries. Nevertheless, the court ultimately concluded that MH failed to convincingly link his activities in the UK to any specific risks he may encounter if returned to Bangladesh.

This case serves as a reminder of the significant challenges facing asylum seekers who originate from political opposition backgrounds. It highlights the complexities of evidential burdens associated with these claims, particularly concerning the scrutiny applied to their accounts. The ruling has established an important legal precedent regarding the assessment of credibility in asylum applications, providing vital guidance for future cases.

The delicate balance that appellate courts must navigate in evaluating both the legitimacy of asylum claims and the frameworks of international protection remains evident in such rulings. As cases like MH’s unfold, they continue to shape the landscape for future applicants navigating the UK legal system in pursuit of asylum.