SOAS Research Online

Abstract

While all anthropological experts take pride when their evidence plays a vital role in securing protection for an asylum applicant, we also acutely remember the cases in which our research and reports were rejected, particularly when our reports appear to be unfairly rejected. In this paper, I discuss two cases in which the British Home Office argued that an asylum applicant was not entitled to protection because he participated in war crimes/crimes against humanity. However, the evidence provided by War Crimes Unit in the United Kingdom’s Home Office took the form of assertions based on a very poor understanding of Ethiopian politics and limited research. In the first case, the Immigration Judge accepted the evidence submitted by the Home Office and refused the applicants claim for asylum, but on appeal the Home Office withdrew the case against the applicant. In the second case, the Immigration Judge adopted some of my evidence for the applicant but denied his claim. This paper explores the pitfalls of litigation and the ability of the state to tilt the scales of justice against asylum claimants.