1919338 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a stateless woman born in what is now South Sudan. The applicant claimed she faced a real risk of persecution upon return to South Sudan due to her ethnicity (Nuer), imputed political opinion, and membership of a particular social group, specifically widowed women without male protection. She also claimed to be stateless, lacking Sudanese citizenship and having not formally acquired South Sudanese citizenship, and asserted she had no right to live in Ethiopia, where she had resided for a period. The applicant’s claims were supported by country information regarding the vulnerability of women and the elderly in South Sudan and Ethiopia, and the lack of effective state protection.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she would face persecution or significant harm if returned to South Sudan or Ethiopia. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of statelessness, her ethnicity, imputed political opinion, and her membership in a particular social group, in light of the available country information and the legal thresholds for protection obligations under the Act. The court also had to consider whether relocation within South Sudan or Ethiopia would be a reasonable modification of behaviour for the applicant.

The court found that the applicant's claims, when considered alongside the country information, indicated a real risk of persecution or significant harm in South Sudan and Ethiopia. The court noted the applicant's illiteracy, lack of education, and memory difficulties, which contributed to inconsistencies in her evidence and the manner in which her visa applications were completed by others. However, the court accepted that these factors did not necessarily undermine her credibility, particularly given the lack of documentary evidence available to her and the general vulnerability of women and the elderly in the regions in question. The court concluded that relocation was not a reasonable option for the applicant.

Consequently, the decision under review was remitted.