“I accordingly believe that he would be allowed to enter Turkey without any real difficulty.”
“I do not believe that he would be handed over to the anti-terrorist unit of the police, since he would not, in my view, be regarded as a PKK suspect.”
“Were they charged with any offences?”
“My grandfather and my sister were charged and sent to court, and although I am not sure I think these cases still continue”
“What were they charged with?”
“I believe my grandfather was arrested because they found a cassette at the branch when they closed HADEP and since he was the branch leader he was arrested. They couldn’t prove anything against him, so he was released”
“10. The Appellant claims that he would face mistreatment due to his race, political opinion and for avoiding military service. He alleges t hat in 1992, he became a supporter of a political party called HEP as well as other parties subsequently. He was arrested six times, and beaten on some occasions during detention. When he completed his military service in 2003, because his family was involved in political matters he was constantly harassed. His home was also kept under surveillance. In April 2004, he went with a journalist friend to the address of a guerrilla, who had been killed in the mountains. He was approached and asked by the authorities if he wished to be an informer. If [he] did not do this, he was told he would be killed. He accordingly decided to leave Turkey. He paid$6,000 to an unknown agent and travelled to the UK by lorry.”
“26. Although I accept that the Appellant on occasion was stopped, sometimes detained for short periods of time, and that he received some ill-treatment prior to his coming to this country, I do not find that his experiences amount to persecution or serious ill-treatment. My reasons are as follows:- (1) Although he states that he was arrested and detained on a total of six occasions, these were between the years 1990 and 2004 when he left Turkey – a total of 15 years. (2) Most of the detentions were for up to two days (Q9-AIR). Indeed, the arrest which he stated resulted in three days detention in 1993, he later said was for only two days, and it was only once, some 13 years ago in 1992, that he was detained for a week. (3) He was not ill-treated on either of the last two occasions, 1999 and 2001 (Q68), so that the last time on which he was beaten looking at the answers given t0 Q9 and Q68 in conjunction, was in 1993. I appreciate that, at Q69, he stated that he was hit with batons in 2002, and there is perhaps some confusion in his answers. However, even if he was ill-treated then, it is the only occasion in the last 12 years. (4) Whilst I would not wish to make light of such treatment, the fact is that the Appellant did not receive the sort of ill-treatment which is sometimes complained of in Turkish cases. There is no evidence that he required medical treatment. (5) I do not believe that he would have accompanied a journalist to the home of a dead PKK guerrilla, had he felt that he was being watched by the authorities, or that would thereby be at risk of ill-treatment. The fact that he did visit the home, and apparently during day time, rather than at night, suggests that he felt he had nothing to fear. (6) If, when he was apparently stopped following the visit to the guerrilla’s home, the authorities had any real interest in him, I believe that he would have been detained. The fact that they did not detain him, and let him off with a warning, indicates that they did not consider that he presented any challenge to them, despite his family connections. (7) The fact that he states that he was asked to become an informer also suggests, once again, that the authorities did not regard him as being so committed to one of the opposition groups, that he would not be prepared to assist them. I do, however, consider that the Appellant has exaggerated with regard to what he states happened. At Q127, he aid that the police told him that if he did not become an informer ‘we will kill you. We will get rid of you’. It is interesting to note that, at the hearing, when it was pointed out that the police, having stopped him and taken him to Karacay, still permitted him to return home, he replied: ‘Yes, they said think hard, we’ll be seeing you again’. – I cannot accept that any threat was a serious one, or that the Appellant took it as such. Not only had he been left relatively un-molested over the years (bearing in mind the political affiliations of some family members) but it would have been far more likely that the police would have detained him rather than releasing him almost immediately.”
“(8) I accept, on balance, that the letter written by Guzel was addressed to the Appellant, despite the fact that she refers to him as elder brother. However, I do not believe that she would have written to him if she felt he was at any risk from the authorities. After all, she would have been aware of the fact that the letter would be read at the prison, and the last thing she would have wished would have been for him to experience problems as a result. The letter, moreover, betrays no sign that he might face difficulties as a result of his past political involvement.”
“(9) In the light of the views that I have expressed above, I do not believe that the authorities have been looking for the Appellant recently as he alleges.”
“Moreover, the decision of MS (Turkey)[2004] UKIAT 00192 … suggests that ‘the vast majority of detentions of political detainee go completely unrecorded by anybody.”
“Accordingly this determination is intended to update and replace the seven decisions listed above [including MS] and to set out the tribunal’s current country guidance on the issues covered in it.”
“The Appellant could choose to return to his home area. I note that relatives, who are still involved in HADEP continue to reside there (Q91) including his grandfather.”
“(iii) … In particular, relying on MS the Immigration Judge erroneously concluded that the applicant’s unofficial detentions would not be recorded; such conclusion is contrary to the conclusions of the Tribunal in IK where it was accepted that such unofficial detentions are recorded locally [at paragraph 75 to 77 of IK] … (iv) The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal erred in failing to assess the appellant’s claim with reference to the objective evidence before it. The determination contains no reference to the objective evidence (including the CIPU) which in facts supports the applicant’s claim that persons with family associations to illegal organisations can expect adverse interest from the authorities, and further that those associated with DEHAP and HADEP continue to be targeted by the authorities. (v) The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal erred in taking into account irrelevant considerations and failing to take into account material facts when assessing the risk upon return for the applicant, namely by placing undue weight on the fact that the applicant’s family members continued to reside in the applicant’s home area and by failing to consider that such family members continue to be targeted by the authorities.”
“I do not find that his experiences amount to persecution or serious ill treatment.”
“reasonably likely to include detentions of persons who were considered to be of material significance by the security forces even if they were thereafter released without judicial involvement”
“f) “Whether the appellant has family connections with a separatist organisation such as KADEK or HADEP or DEPHAP.”
“h) Whether in the period after the appellant’s last arrest there is any evidence that he or she was kept under surveillance or monitored by the authorities.”
“Whether the appellant became an informer, or was asked to become one?”