“The issue was whether in the light of the objective evidence now available as to the attitude of the Ethiopian authorities towards the opposition coalition, such a person would be at risk upon return. The argument was refined in closing by a reliance upon the evidence of the Appellant’s political activism in the United Kingdom in the following two ways. Firstly the applicant believed that the Ethiopian authorities would know of his activism in the United Kingdom (the sur place claim), and thus he would be at risk of detention immediately upon return. Secondly even if the Appellant had not yet come to their attention and thus faced no risk at the airport on return, the evidence of his political activism in the United Kingdom lent weight to his claim that he would continue to be politically active on behalf of the opposition coalition upon return to Ethiopia, which activism would result in persecution.”
“45. I am not satisfied on the evidence that has been placed before me that there is a real (as opposed to fanciful) risk that the Appellant’s actions in the United Kingdom have come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.”
“47 I am satisfied on the objective evidence that if the appellant did demonstrate against the authorities on behalf of the CUD, today and within Ethiopia, that he would thereby be at risk of detention and ill-treatment at the hands of the authorities. I am not however satisfied even on the applicable standard of proof, that he would be likely to do so.”
“1. The appellant is an Ethiopian citizen whose claim is based on political opinion (Rainbow Party and Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party Support Organisation). He relies on United Kingdom activities as well as within Ethiopia. His core account was not believed, save that the Immigration Judge accepted that the appellant did have some political involvement whilst in Ethiopia. In particular, neither the fact-finding nor the reviewing Tribunal accepted that the appellant’s Ethiopian activities had come to the attention of the authorities there at any time. The sur place activities were recent and the reviewing Immigration Judge did not accept that they had occurred as claimed. 2.The grounds of appeal disagree with the Tribunal’s findings at length. However on the basis of the facts found (properly) by the Immigration Judge and the reviewing Tribunal, no error of law is identified.”
““He [that is the judge] then went in detail and with considerable care through the evidence and gave cogent reasons for rejecting the applicant’s case on both points. The case falls directly within the guidance as to the correct approach to appeals from the AIT, given to this court by the House of Lords in AH (Sudan) ‘it is probable that in understanding and applying the law in their specialised field the tribunal has got it right.’ Their decision should be respected unless it is quite clear that they have misdirected themselves in law.”