Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify him. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
      This is the second stage of an appeal by the Secretary of State (with permission) against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Heap to allow the appeal of BH against refusal of his protection claim.
      For ease of exposition, we shall hereafter refer to the parties by reference to their appeal status in the First-tier Tribunal.
      The appellant's protection claim can be summarised by saying that he has a well-founded fear of being harmed by his paternal uncle on account of his refusal to marry his uncle's daughter. He cannot avoid the risk of such harm by relocating within Namibia due to his uncle's significant power and influence throughout its territory, and because it would in any event be unduly harsh to expect him to relocate given the linguistic and cultural obstacles that he would face as a member of the Herero Tribe.
      The judge found that the appellant had given credible evidence in relation to the primary facts of his claim [43 to 50] and that this gave rise to a real risk of future harm at the hand of his uncle should he return to his home area in Namibia [52, 53].
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.