Submissions on Risk of Persecution

In UK asylum and protection claims, submissions on risk of persecution are a central part of the legal process. When a person applies for asylum, they must explain and support why they fear persecution if returned to their home country. These submissions - including written statements, documentary evidence and country information - form the core of the decision‑maker's assessment of whether the claimant meets the definition of a refugee or qualifies for humanitarian protection. This article explains what risk of persecution means, how to prepare effective submissions, how evidence is evaluated, procedural steps and time limits, common challenges, and what claimants and advisers should consider in England and Wales. The explanations draw on authoritative Home Office policy, legislation, tribunal practice and legal principles.

Legal Framework: Risk of Persecution

The UK's asylum system implements protections arising from the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Immigration Rules and domestic human rights law. A person is a refugee if they are outside their country and have a well‑founded fear of persecution for reasons such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Protected status may also be granted under the humanitarian protection route where there is a real risk of serious harm on return, such as torture or indiscriminate violence.

To succeed, claimants must demonstrate both a subjective fear (they genuinely fear return) and an objective risk (there is a reasonable likelihood of persecution). The burden of substantiating these elements lies with the claimant, and submissions must be supported by evidence.

What “Risk of Persecution” Means

Defining Persecution

Persecution is not just unfavourable treatment. It requires serious, discriminatory harm that violates basic human rights. Harm can include physical violence, unjust detention, torture, denial of access to justice, discriminatory legal measures, or other serious violations of rights. Decision‑makers must assess whether the feared harm is sufficiently serious to amount to persecution.

Convention Reasons

Risk of persecution must be linked to a Convention reason:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership of a particular social group
• Political opinion

A claimant must show that the treatment feared is for one of these reasons - a fear based purely on economic concerns or general hardship does not qualify as persecution under the Refugee Convention.

Risk Threshold

Objective risk is assessed using a reasonable likelihood test - a relatively low standard of proof reflecting uncertainty about future conditions. Even a modest but real chance of serious harm may be sufficient if supported by credible evidence.

Preparing Submissions on Risk of Persecution

Effective submissions require a structured approach that sets out personal circumstances and objective background evidence.

Personal Statement

The claimant's own narrative is the foundation. This should include:

• Detailed description of past experiences of mistreatment, threats or discrimination;
• Explanation of why the claimant fears return, including when and how fear began;
• Clear link between feared harm and a Convention reason.

This should be presented in a written statement or Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) and expanded upon in the asylum interview. Claimants are expected to co‑operate and disclose relevant information for a thorough assessment.

Documentary Evidence

Supporting documents strengthen credibility and add objective detail. Relevant evidence may include:

• Official documents such as arrest warrants, police records or court decisions;
• Medical reports showing evidence of injury or trauma;
• Membership cards, political association documents or evidence of community ties;
• Witness or family statements corroborating the claimant's account;
• Country reports detailing persecution of groups similar to the claimant.

Documents must be genuine, clearly referenced and directly related to the risk factors alleged in the claim.

Country of Origin Information (COI)

Objective evidence about the situation in the claimant's home country is essential. COI can be sourced from reputable institutions, international bodies, NGOs and government reports. It should be current and specifically linked to the claimant's circumstances.

Structured Submissions and Decision‑Making

Two‑Stage Assessment Process

Home Office guidance establishes a structured process for asylum decisions:

1. First stage: Decide whether the claimant has a characteristic that could cause persecution for a Convention reason and whether they genuinely fear that harm. This involves credibility and material fact assessment.
2. Second stage: Assess whether there is a real risk of persecution on return, based on COI and country context. This is evaluated against the objective standard of reasonable likelihood.

The second stage focuses on future risk, while the first stage focuses on credibility and personal circumstances.

Credibility and Consistency

Decision‑makers assess credibility and reliability of evidence. Where documentation is sparse, claimants may rely on consistent, plausible accounts of their experiences, provided inconsistencies are explained and corroborating evidence is presented. The Home Office is required to work with claimants to obtain information where possible.

Procedural Steps and Time Limits

Asylum Interview and Submissions

After initial screening, claimants attend a substantive asylum interview. This is a key opportunity to present their fear of persecution in detail and explain supporting evidence. Interview records form part of the decision record and should be accurate and comprehensive.

Further Submissions

If new evidence arises after a refusal, claimants may make further submissions to the Home Office before removal action. These must be considered before removal can proceed. The Home Office guidance confirms that further evidence relating to asylum and human rights claims must be evaluated on its merits.

Appeals

If an asylum claim is refused, claimants usually have a right of appeal to the First‑tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), where risk submissions and evidence can be presented again. Appeal time limits are strict and must be adhered to.

Common Challenges in Risk Submissions

Insufficient Evidence

Claims are frequently rejected where submissions fail to demonstrate a link between feared harm and a Convention reason or lack sufficient objective support. Inadequate documentation or unfamiliarity with relevant country conditions are common pitfalls.

Credibility Issues

Inconsistencies in personal accounts can undermine credibility. Detailed preparation, supported by evidence and explanation of any discrepancies, improves prospects.

Professional Assistance

Given the complexity of legal standards and evidence requirements, many claimants engage a solicitor specialising in asylum law to prepare submissions and representations.

Common Questions

Does the claimant have to prove persecution absolutely?
No. The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood of harm on return, which is a lower threshold than civil proofs like balance of probabilities.

Can new evidence change the outcome after refusal?
Yes. New evidence can be included in further submissions which must be considered before any removal action.

What happens if persecution is not risked on Convention grounds?
If Convention grounds are not met, claimants may still qualify for humanitarian protection if there is a real risk of serious harm such as torture or death.

Final Thoughts

Submissions on risk of persecution are essential in asylum and protection claims in the UK. They must clearly explain the personal basis for fear, link to Convention reasons, and be supported by credible, objective evidence including country information. Structured submissions help decision‑makers apply legal tests properly, while procedural mechanisms such as further submissions and appeals ensure claimants have multiple opportunities to demonstrate their risk. Understanding requirements, preparing evidence carefully, and meeting procedural deadlines are key to successful outcomes.