Myanmar Visa British Passport

Burma Visa British Passport

A valid passport with additional blank pages for the visa, valid for at least six months from the expiry date. Do you have the exact amount of Euro or US Dollar (or, for British passport holders only, British Pounds Sterling) - in CASH! to pay for your visa. Visas, passports, consular declarations, legalization of documents and much more. Myanmar visa, visa requirements for meditation visa for British passport holders.

About Myanmar Visa in Kuala Lumpur - Myanmar Forum

All I wanted to do was publish some up-to-date information about a visa for Burma (Myanmar) in Kuala Lumpur. I' m British and I don't reside in Kuala Lumpur, I'm only on the road for a whole weekend. Obtaining a Myanmar visa in KL was unbelievably simple. Message No. 8 (C), Jalan Ampang Hilir, 55000, Kuala Lumpur.

The embassy is about 15 minutes on foot or 5 minutes by cab (costs approx. 3.60 MYR). Deadline for submissions is Monday to Friday 09:30 - 12:30 and pick-up time is Monday to Friday 16:00 - 17:00. On Monday I requested my visa at 11:00 and on Tuesday I collected it at 16:00.

You make the application form available at the Swiss Federalassy. You will need a visa for tourists: These are pictures of the Executive Committee at the Dispatch with documentation required for any kind of visa (tourist, commercial, multi-pass, religious visits (meditation) and welfare visits). Touristic, devotional (meditation) and societal visits. The first time you get to the message, everything seems to be quite puzzling, there are a lot of folks and there don't seem to be any English sign.

But, actually, it was so simple - one of the simplest visa applications I have ever done. Nearly opposite the door on the other side of the yard is a small section with a desk and chair and two small doors in the walls with a plate on top that says "visa section" (which will appear concealed when you first arrive!), you take your ticket out of the door on your lefthand side and then stand in line (only took 10-15 minutes while we were there) and put your passport and your documents in the door on the right-hand side.

court rulings

Below are general policies to assess the risks of a returning to Burma by a Myanmar citizen: 1. A person who has unlawfully exited Burma is generally at danger when returning to Burma under circumstances which may reasonably infringe his human right under the terms of Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 3.

Departure is unlawful if it takes place without the permission of the Myanmar authority, however it may take place, and includes entry into a state to which the individual was not allowed to enter under the conditions of an authorized departure. It is right to draw this deduction from the implementation of Art. 5(j) of the Burma Emergency Act 1950 in the Van Tha case, either on the grounds of the implementation of this provision in this case or as a result of a violation of the conditions of withdrawal outlined in Section 83.

2. A person of Burma is generally threatened with such detention if he is brought back to Burma from the United Kingdom without a current Myanmar passport. It is unlikely that a person from Burma in the United Kingdom will be granted a passport by the Myanmar authority in London unless he can present an out-of-date passport in his name to the embassy.

4. If the authorities in Burma become aware that a beneficiary of (1) or (2) is a unsuccessful applicant for political asylum, it is likely that this will have a significant impact on the period of imprisonment for his unauthorised departure and/or arrival. The repatriation of such a refugee from the United Kingdom would therefore be a violation of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.

The question whether this fact would come to the knowledge of the public authority must be established on the basis of the facts of the individual case, taking into account that the individual is most likely to be questioned on his or her way back. Compatibility with Burma of a non-1 or 2 individual who returns to Burma because of an application for United Kingdom nationality has not been established to be at genuine risk of being persecuted or ill-treated, even if the Burmese authority has reasonable grounds to believe that it has made such an application, unless the authority has reasonable grounds to consider him a policyholder.

She is a Burmese national. It called on an immigration judge to oppose the Foreign Minister's ruling of 29 January 2005 to refuse entry to the United Kingdom. An immigration judge rejected her appointment. The review was ordered by a Senior Immigration Judge on June 8, 2005. The Court of First Instance ruled on 13 September 2005 that there was a legal mistake in the Immigration Judge's ruling on the following grounds.

She was found to have made a fundamental legal mistake in not taking into consideration the allegation in section 19 of the skeletal case before her regarding the complainant's previous Burma issues and in not learning about what occurred to her in Burma between October 2004 and January 2005.

S. Cox has been appointed to the IAS on the name of the Appeal and S. Ouseley on the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On 29 January 2005, the complainant came to the United Kingdom and applied for political asylum. 3. She said at an job meeting that she had come to the UK from Thailand.

She' been there for two night after getting out of Burma. Said she didn't have her own passport after giving it to an operative after they got off the airplane. Your passport was real. And she said she had a copy of the passport on her.

It said that this was due to the fact that the Burmese had always been copying important documentation. They asked her what the point of the passport handover to the agents was and she said she didn't know what to do after she got out of Burma, so the agents took care of her. As she pushed the car across the hallway, she said that someone had asked her for her passport and she had given it to her on instructions.

Said she gave the passport to the spy as she was walking down a hallway and did so because she was called in. It had previously been officially granted a matrimonial visa for entry into the United Kingdom. was to marry a local citizen of Burma.

It had also successfully obtained a visa for entry into Thailand and on every occassion it had used its own name. She was denied a visa just before receiving her visa to enter Thailand and said that this was due to the fact that she had purchased a unique Bangkok flight and that she should have a plane fare back.

They bought a one-way plane back. Regarding the earlier UK trip, she said she had gotten remarried, but she had argued with her fiance and had to go home. She' d come back because she'd had trouble in Burma since she got back.

Said that she was being persecuted by the government and that she needed help. She' had seen her former fiancee when he was a Burmese schoolteacher, and that was when she was about fourteen years old and they had kept in contact afterwards. Their fiance had called for democratisation when the civilian insurgency in Burma began in the United Kingdom in 1988.

In 1978 he went to the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, she had seen him whenever he went to Burma, and he had done so several occasions in 1996. You hadn' t got divorced when she first came to Britain because you had incompatible disagreements. They asked her why her fiance had never been detained when he came back to Burma to see her, and she said that he was continually visiting and questioned, and before he went to Burma, he autographed a paper in which he promised that he would not do policy in Burma, and so he was admitted.

He was not admitted to the airfield and had to come back, she thought, in 2001 or perhaps 2002, so he sent for her in 2004 instead of going to Burma. It was asked what was happening when it came back to its home from the United Kingdom.

This was the date on which the Prime Minister and military intelligence had been cleaned up, which caused the agencies to become more mistrustful. They asked her when she chose to go back to Burma. Said she felt nothing would hurt her if she didn't, but she got the message that her ex-fiance would return to Burma.

Said he wanted to see her when he came back to Burma even though she didn't know why. On 21 March 2005, the complainant made a declaration. In point 7, she pointed out that she had taken part in protests but had not come to the notice of the public authority.

Regarding her medical care when she came back to Burma from the UK in October 2004, she said that she was taken to a location at the Special Branch airfield and interviewed for two nights and asked about her grounds for her return to Burma, her Burmese colleagues and her policies, and that she was charged with being the operative of her ex-fleet.

It also pointed to issues faced by Muslims like them in Burma. Following the interview before the immigration judge and the first phase of the retrial, the complainant made a further declaration on 17 November 2005. She gave more details about what was happening to her during the two day questioning when she came back to Burma.

On 29 November 2005, at the hearings, Mr Ouseley presented a copy of the complainant's passport without any objections from Mr Cox. It also tried to make another declaration by the complainant and agreed that it could have been delivered in good notice. This was one she had with her when she arrived in the United Kingdom.

Plaintiff has testified. In the course of a cross-examination by Mr Ouseley, the complainant said that she had remembered her previous testimony and the questioning by the Ministry of the Interior and that she had then spoken the true facts to the best of her knowing. Said she had been explaining in the previous declaration why she could not return to Burma and had to return because there was a threat to her and she had been explaining these more important things.

They asked her how she would have bribed the police if she had been detained. The girl had departed Burma with her own passport, of which she had received a copy today. Bribes were given to get her out of Burma the second time. It was a Thai woman who had abandoned Thailand with her own passport and had an exiting postmark when she departed Burma, and this was an offical exiting postmark that had been obtained by corruption.

Back then she thought he wasn't such a powerful Moslem. In the past she had thought that he was only an ordinary Moslem, because to pray five days a week was what every ordinary Moslem did, but afterwards he had demanded very rigorous observance of the teaching.

There were things like not putting on denim or having talks with foreigners and when people came she should stay inside and not come out and speak to them and not go to marriages and not go to see his family in the UK because they would be teaching her evil things. As she affirmed, she was politically engaged at the Burmese universities and many of her fellow students were detained and some disappeared, and she had called for their release.

Asked about her question on her comeback to Burma, they asked her which policy organization she had got in touch with in the UK. Had a six-month visa, but had only remained twenty-six and had a multi-visa that would have allowed her to come back, and they had thought that because she had the right to go back and forth, she would come back to get in touch with someone.

You asked her why she didn't remain until the end of the visa. It had not acknowledged that it had been active in politics in the United Kingdom. They had no relations or families in the UK and nowhere to go after quarrelling with him and having to go back.

At the reexamination, the complainant said that if she had been said by her fiance before her arrival that he, as his spouse, expected her to meet his demands in England, that she had not yet wed him or had even come to the United Kingdom. It reminded that it was questioned by the Immigration Advisory Service for the March 2005 declaration.

He also came to Burma to give English lessons. So we asked the complainant why she had given the passport to the spy. Said it was dangerous for her to return to Burma because her ex-fiance had prevented her from returning to Britain and because she could not return to Burma.

When she gave the passport, she thought the operative was looking after the agencies on her account. Fotocopy of the passport was made in Burma. When she gave the passport to the operative, he vanished. He' asked her to join him, and he' s gone to INS.

Morland was British Ambassador to Burma between 1986 and 1990, having previously been Third and Second Secretaries in Burma between 1957 and 1961. Following his resignation from diplomatic service in 1993, he has continued his interest in Burma's business by maintaining contacts with consecutive British ambassadors in Burma and following developments through the web, professional journals, the general media, wireless and TV.

A regular contributor to the BBC Myanmar Service and World Service, he has remained in touch with BBC employees and other journalist specializing in Myanmar issues. As chairman of Prospect Burma, he has had to keep pace with what has happened in Burma since 1994. It is a charitable organization established after the 1988 Burma rebellion to help Myanmar refugee student workers who are compelled to leave the Burma to pursue higher learning abroad.

Mr President, this is the case of Stanley Van Tha, who was abducted from Switzerland to Burma in April 2004. Mr Van Tha is a chin from Burma whose application for political asylum was refused by the Confederation's administrative bodies and was exported to Yangon airport on 15 April 2004 under APR.

At first sight, this seems to include a seven-year penalty under the Burma Emergency Act 1950, Art. 5(j), for which the tribunal decided that it was acting to subvert the safety of the Union and the re-establishment of order, a criminal act within the meaning of the above clause. Illegal, he traveled from Burma to Bangkok and then from Bangkok to Zurich, where he applied for refuge and used a reference from a United Kingdom recognized United Kingdom fugitive-politician.

Mr Van Tha's sentencing was entirely grounded in these incidents and it was not found that he had undertaken policy actions inside or outside Burma. Second, there was another seven years in prison under Article 468 of the Criminal Code for being found responsible for forgery of records because his passport contained nonoriginal punches, complete with a Myanmar departure punch and a fake visa.

The ruling states that the Myanmar government keeps a list of those who are leaving Burma on a duly stamped outpost. Third, Mr Van Tha was sentenced to five years in prison for illegally entering the Union of Myanmar under Burma's 1947 Immigration Act, Section 13(1). Notwithstanding the fact that he was in the possession of a passport in his own name.

Mrs. Lewa concluded that the complainant in the present appointment would be seriously threatened with detention, prosecution and possibly with torture if he were brought to Burma. On 14 November 2005, in her supplementary declaration, she referred to the periodic deportations of burmese migrants by Thai migration missions.

It says little is known about its destiny after it crosses the line and is turned over to the Myanmar police, although there is evidence of arrested persons or those who have to do hard work. It also recalls recent events in Burma which indicate that the situation in the Philippines is worsening and the present leaders are no longer responding to world pressure, leading to restrictions on the freedom of movements of humanitarian organisations and a harsher attitude towards them.

The Commission is satisfied that, if the complainant is dismissed as a refused applicant for political asylum, she runs the risk of being arrested and tortured, especially since she does not have a passport and a proper departure permit. Several of these questions concern the general context in Burma, others are more specifically for the complainant.

Among other things, he commented on the general position of the Myanmar police towards Burma's policy disagreement, the position towards unsuccessful applicants for refuge who have come back to Burma, whether the Myanmar police would be willing to issue an entrance visa to a figure such as the complainant's former fiance, and on whether the Myanmar police would be willing to do so, for example, if the complainant's descriptions of how she was handled by the complainant's services on her way back to and after Burma are reasonable, if she would have been granted a passport and a visa to emigrate because she is interested in her, and if the services would accept a bribery to allow such a loved one to flee the state.

Mr Morland's document relates to a definition given by Burma as an army comprising one land and not as a land comprising an army and the corresponding lack of toleration of any sentiments. Behavior of the government is incalculable. Burma's London ambassador has members of its secret service among diplomats who take photographs and identifies political opponents who are demonstrating in front of the ambassador, as well as informers in the Myanmar fellowship.

It is suspected that every Burmese who live in the West and return for a trip brings along submissive notions. The Commission believes that, on the grounds of this case, it is highly likely that the complainant could be detained and questioned under Torture and could be imprisoned for unauthorised immigration for at least five years and would face an extra seven years if the complainant were to know that she had applied for asylum abov.

In his view, it is perhaps a surprise that a figure such as the complainant's ex-fiance would be given a visa to go back to Burma if one looks at his story. The complainant's handling by the prosecution services is quite reasonable in view of her sudden homecoming to Burma and her connections with a former Burmese politician.

With regard to the complainant's second departure from Burma, he concluded that someone who is unsure of the Burmese government, but who is not a great opponent, can take bribes with the help of wealthy acquaintances who are able to afford immigrant officers, which is a vast sum for them. It reaffirmed what it said in the declaration on the comparison of the Burmese and Soviet Union situations under Stalin.

He was not entitled to determine whether what the complainant said was correct or not, but he found it not unlikely. He was told that a man who did not carry such a note was not at any danger, and he said it was highly dangerous.

They asked him what effect it would have on his or her way back if a man had real immigration and departure cancels. It was clear that the Myanmar refugees did not like those seeking refuge abroad, and there would be difficulties for the complainant if she were accompanied back. They would ask what they probably couldn't withstand if they weren't accompanied back, and it would probably be frightening, as he knew from those who had seen it.

There' definitely be trouble for her if she came back with an expired passport. When someone came back without any problem with the Myanmar government, the whole thing was theoretical, but the whole thing didn't seem to be him. The complainant said that there had been about a decade of cases of asylum in recent years, and it was sometimes a characteristic, but it was not clear whether it would be applicable to the complainant.

He was proposed that the complainant, because she had a Myanmar passport in the past if she was not successful in her appointment, could get a new passport and he said that she could not say that the Myanmar people were very hesitant to issue passes in the West, although this would sometimes happen for example in Singapore.

The connection with the West was what the Myanmar government did not like. They asked him what the charges were against illegally immigrating to Burma, e.g. whether a man who enters with an out-of-date passport is responsible for it. Mr Morland was reminded of the point raised in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Southeast Asia Ministry document of 3 February 2004, which stated that the people of Burma could resuscitate their passes at the Burma embassy in London.

and the complainant appears as a suspected individual. However, it was made clear that this seemed to relate to the case that a party whose passport had lapsed while in the UK could have it renewed at the Burmese embassy. One of the reasons for the long prison term in the Van Tha case, he said, was that he had come back as a unsuccessful asylgee.

The passport can be renewed abroad. The complainant did not know whether the Myanmar authority would know that the complainant had gone to Thailand, although it was possible that they would do so. The fact that she does not have a visa for the United Kingdom would pose issues. Mr Morland did not know that had ever happened in Burma.

There was suspicion on the part of the officials and they would look at such a man when he arrived. The complainant confirmed what he said about his previous actions. It had had the chance to seek refuge here if it had wanted it before, but it had not taken it and had gone back to Burma, and the fact that it had only come back to the United Kingdom later strengthened its credit.

She proved that her ex-fiance's activity had largely stopped, so it was not strange that she had been given a passport for a bribe or that he was permitted to go back to Burma to see his family. She was not the point about anxiety about having a myocardial infarction that the government had done to her or that she had been telling them about.

She should be at least in proportion to what had previously occurred to her on her arrival. It had previously had an explanation as to why it had gone to the United Kingdom, but now no explanation. It would not come back with a passport with a visa.

There would be no passport, but there would be an offical protocol that she was given a passport, and there might be a protocol of what she said when she went. On page 73 of the package, the Ministry of the Interior's note related only to one case of restitution, and that could have happened on any basis.

The complainant was likely to have come to the knowledge of the public authority and also to have been informed of the earlier interrogations and allegations. If what she had said about what had been going on the last time she was back was not the truth, there was a genuine danger that it would happen if she were to come back today, and in any case she would get a longer prison sentence.

This Tribunal was referenced on page 5 of the target package, where there is an analytical report on the pertinent materials and in particular a reference to the Burma Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act 1947. Bureaucracies were prepared to apply the penal code. When the complainant received an emigration postmark by fraud, it was likely that he was handled as a fake.

Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, we asked him to consider the impact on the complainant's credence. The complainant claimed, on the one side, that she had a sensible reasoning for not presenting a passport to an immigration officer on the hearsay.

At any rate, she had made a copy of the immigration officer and therefore did not try to hide her name. Mr Ouseley argued in his speech that, if the complainant did not present her passport, she had tried to prevent her from returning, since these were issues which would impede the distance of a passport holder who was no longer in possession and was therefore unlikely to be able to present it.

And he also said that she was not trustworthy about what occurred on her way back to Burma. Of course, their leaders would have recognised the importance of these issues if they were real, especially with respect to a land like Burma. Because if what she said was real, it would be tortures, and a party to whom it occurred would want to say what it was and abandon it later.

She was not truthful about her ex-fiance because she was conscious of his desires, and there was also the point that it was a surprise that he was able to go back to Burma. and if she wasn't believable, there wouldn't be any problem returning.

Obviously there were issues for the returners to Burma. The complainant's passport, however, was issued in foreign currencies until July 2005. It could have kept it and brought it to the Burmese embassy because it would not be carrying out controls with Rangoon. If her passport had lapsed and there was no other way to explain it.

There was no clear what was on the passport that had a current departure permit. In response, Mr Cox did not agree that there were no controls in Rangoon when it was necessary to reissue a passport. Van Tha was a well-documented case about the position of a repatriate and stood in contrast to the lack of any proof from the Interior Ministry about those who had come back to Burma.

On the question of credence, one could have hoped that the immigration officer would have asked her about the details of what had been done to the complainant when she was interviewed on her way back to Burma. One should ask why she would make up such a tale if it were not the truth and if she would make up why she would not have remained in the United Kingdom at all.

The plaintiff said about the spy was believable. Mr Ouseley questioned the complainant's credence, partly on the grounds of the further details given in the second declaration, contrary to what she said in the interviews and in her previous declaration when she came back to Burma in October 2004, but also with respect to her alleged grounds for returning from the United Kingdom at that point, and also with respect to what was happening with the passport and the resulting questions in Section 8.

Above we have explained the different presentation of the Appeal Counsel. The complainant was questioned and we remember the substance of what she said in relation to the question. They said she was presumed by the police to be a woman of spying, and they questioned her "all the time" during the two-day period she was detained.

While we will come back to this point in a moment, we feel it is important to mention that the substance of what the complainant said in her second explanation is to some degree, albeit less specifically, evident from the interviewee, in which she pointed out such things as fear and threat and the nature of the issues that were put to her.

Mr Ouseley also asked us not to agree with what the complainant said about the causes for the failure of the commitment. The complainant claimed that she had been informed of the desires of her ex-fiancee and also pointed to the fact that it was a surprise that he was entitled to return to Burma on the basis of his story.

However, in this context, account must be taken of what Mr Morland said in point 15 of his explanation that it may be possible for the ex-fiancé to come back with the intent to find out more about him and to check on everyone he meets alongside members of his families.

We must also take into consideration Section 8 of the 2004 Law on Immigration and Asylum in this context. "1 "1. In order to determine whether a declaration made by a lodger of an application for political or judicial asylum or an application for the protection of fundamental freedoms is to be considered credible, a decision-making body shall take into consideration any conduct to which this section is applicable as detrimental to the applicant's credit.

Through the complainant's own proof, we have explained what she believes has been done with her passport. The complainant said during the interviewer that she gave it to the spy because he said to her to give it to her. As we asked her why she gave him the passport, she said because her ex-fiance had prevented her from returning to Britain and because she could not return to Burma and it was dangerous for her to return to Burma, and the asset had said to her that he would give her a guaranty.

When she gave the passport, she thought the operative was negotiating with the feds on her account. It has made various statements as to why the passport was not presented. In our opinion, this is a reference to a individual who is conscious that the fact that he or she no longer had the passport could make the return even more unpleasant.

We have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no sensible reason why she did not present a passport and that this is pertinent to the evaluation of the applicant's credence as a question that damages her credit. As we see from Mr Cox's assertion, it is perhaps a surprise that the complainant did not stay in the UK and then apply for political asylum if the report on the first UK trip and repatriation were not being made.

She agrees with the assertion that she has come and found her fiancée to make claims against her that she thought it irrational and as a result of which she came back to Burma. There is no other reason why she clearly had a visa for a fiancée to enter the United Kingdom and yet came back after a few inches.

We therefore recognise that she came to the United Kingdom for the first time for the stated reason and for the stated reason. With regard to what occurred to her when she was interrogated after returning to Burma in October 2004, we believe that in the second declaration she tried to add to what she said earlier.

This is in line with what she said during the two-day questioning after her immediate resumption in Rangoon. While we agree with Mr Morland's astonishment at the fact that the former complainant is permitted to go back to Burma, we find Mr Morland's assumption in point 15 of his explanation of the reason why the Burmese authority could allow the former complainant back to Burma convincing, also taking into account the fact that he spoke about the unpredictable conduct of the authority in point 8 of that explanation.

According to the second part of the complainant's Times Subscriptions section on pages 65 to 66, the author's ex-fiancé exists and the name of the complainant in respect of the motion in which he was a part of at the date endorses what the complainant says about his story.

It is also believable to us that the complainant was afraid of what might be happening to her when she found out that her ex-fiance intended to go back to Burma. Given what we have noted above, we believe it would have been believable that she would have been worried and worried about what the agencies could have done to her as a result of his comeback, considering that they had an interest in her in the past, at least in part of their relation or perception of their relation to him.

We' re starting with the June 2005 Home Office Operation Guidance Notes on Burma. that since 1962 Burma has been governed by a number of extremely dictatorial army regimes controlled by the vast majority of the Burmese people. Allegations of participation in Burma's Burmese opposing factions are being considered, and the conclusions are that applicants with strong ties to the Burmese opposing movements are likely to have problems when they return to Burma, and that therefore the opposition's politicians are likely to be entitled to refuge.

It is said that there are common prejudices against Burmese of southern Asia origins, most of whom are Muslims, and in 2004 there was anti-Muslim force and surveillance of Muslims' activity and limitations on Islamic travelling and church services throughout the state. There' s a special section on those who have unlawfully abandoned Burma.

That the Burmese embassy is unlikely to give him a new passport if a person has exited Burma without a passport and in violation of the terms of the deposit (in a politically or criminally motivated case). He would almost certainly be imprisoned if he returned to Burma through an offical access point.

If the passport has been forfeited, the owner is usually able to have it renewed at the Embassy of Burma after all unpaid tax has been paid. Penalties for leaving or coming back to Burma without a passport are usually less than the seven-year prison term, but perpetrators who are known policy makers can face tougher penalties and extra indictments; if they are indicted under other legislation, the penalties must be commuted.

They say that if an applicant does not have a passport, it must be established whether he or she has abandoned it legal or illegal, whether the passport has been revoked, and whether it can be revived at the Burmese embassy. We conclude that detention in Burma is serious and is likely to exceed the thresholds of Art. 3 and that granting human rights is therefore appropriate if individuals are able to prove a genuine threat of detention on returning to Burma and granting refugee status will be appropriate if the actual threat of detention refers to one of the reasons for the Refugee Convention.

The first section sums up that if a individual is not a real politician, a unsuccessful application for refugee status is no grounds for prosecution on returning, provided they are returned with a current Myanmar passport, but otherwise the applicant may face seven years imprisonment.

Rangoon's British embassy thinks the issue is not that a loved one is a unsuccessful applicant for political asylum, but that he or she has been expelled without a proper Myanmar passport. Alluding to the possibility of renewing a passport at the Myanmar embassy in London seems to refer to a holder who has an out-of-date.

Strict controls on the issuing of passports and visas led to ongoing bribery. Section 2(d) of this document shows that an average person needs three papers to go abroad - a passport from the Ministry of the Interior, a tax return from the Ministry of Finance and Finance and an immigration and immigration emigration certificate from the Ministry of Immigration and Population.

Additionally, there is a useful executive summing up on pages 3 to 12 of the target package, which includes an IAS research report on the position of unsuccessful applicants who have left Burma unlawfully. Enclosed are the regulations of the Burma Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act 1947. Paragraph 13 of this Act states: (1) Anyone entering or attempting to join the Burmese Union, or who stays or seeks to stay after entering the country legally in violation of the terms of this Act or the regulations contained therein, or of any of the terms laid down in a visa or license, will be sentenced to a maximum of two years' imprisonment or to a monetary or both.

2. No Union of Burma national shall be admitted to the Union without a passport from the Union of Burma in force or a document of authenticity drawn up by a relevant public body. Obviously he has gained extensive experiences with the Myanmar community over several years and also cultivated his connections, so that he can be described as a well-informed authorities in Myanmar matters.

We are aware that the complainant would go back to Burma without a passport if she were sent back. That would clearly violate Section 3(2) of the Burma Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act 1947, to which we refer above. Mr Ouseley proposed that the authorities' opinion of Mr Van Tha could have been colored by the fact that he had with him a reference note from a recognized U.S. fugitive politician.

It was his opinion that it would be highly dangerous to give back a loved one whose position could be similar to that of Mr Van Tha, but who lacked the strenuous reference to him. The complainant's information from the Myanmar police is not known. Probably from what Ms. Lewa says, it seems that there is a list of those who are leaving Burma on a duly stamped home.

As a result, the complainant may assume that she has departed Burma on a visa on a Myanmar passport, which allows her to make a relatively brief stay in Thailand. Obviously, she never had a visa to enter the United Kingdom at that point in it.

So she would perhaps come back as a non-passport holder on EU documents and it may well be that the fact that she is coming back from the UK would be a thing the UK has known. Had they not known immediately, it would be likely that the complainant would have this information from the public authority if they were asked when they re-enter.

Contrary to the position she had previously left the UK, she has no consistent narrative that could eventually please the Myanmar administration. This was in connection with the case of a character who was in the UK at the moment and who came back relatively soon and was a known former co-worker of a character in whom the Myanmar administration had an interest in the past.

We say that no such declaration could be made this case on our comeback, and it is highly likely that the Burmese authority would find that she was a unsuccessful applicant for political asylum who had not met the terms under which she was permitted to depart Burma and who would come back without a passport in force.

In that case, there is a genuine danger that, under the Burma Emergency Act 1950, Art. 5(j) such as Mr Van Tha or, if not the most he has been given, she would face a reduced but still significant imprisonment of up to seven years.

There is also a danger that, according to section 13(1) of Burma's 1947 Immigration Act, she could face up to five years in prison (instead of the seven years adopted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office).

With regard to the three IAT agencies in the package; in AH[2004] UKIAT 00085 the complainant was a Rohingya Muslim, much of which was rejected by the arbitrator; in S[2003] UKIAT 00135 there was no negative interest on the part of the Myanmar authority in the complainant; and TW[2004] UKIAT 00285 was worried about the need for the arbitrators to make any particular statement as to whether or not the Myanmar citizens had been allowed to leave Burma.

Let us recall Mr Ouseley's remark that the complainant may have made removal more complicated, if not even possible, by giving the passport to the spy. We believe, however, that there would indeed be little substantive distinction if the applicant had kept her passport.

When she returns with her own passport (which was of course the case for Mr Van Tha), we see the danger that she will still be sued for illegally entering the country, as she did not comply with the conditions of the visa she was issued. Regarding the position of this particular complainant, we have come to the conclusion that she is as trustworthy as we have stated above and we have come to the conclusion that there is a danger that she will be subject to prosecution under Section 13 of the Burma Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act 1947.

In this case, we agree that, because of its past and its perceptions, there is a basis for a policy view of the Refugee Convention and it must be followed, and it was also a shared belief before us, that a true danger of being detained in Burma is a danger of being persecuted if there is a cause of the Convention, and that it is in any case at stake of mistreatment under the terms of Rule 3.

1. A person who has unlawfully exited Burma is generally at danger when returning to Burma under circumstances which may reasonably infringe his human right under the provisions of Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 3. Departure is unlawful if it takes place without the permission of the Myanmar authority, however it may take place, and includes entry into a state to which the individual was not allowed to enter under the provisions of an authorized departure.

It is right to draw this deduction from the implementation of Art. 5(j) of the Burma Emergency Act 1950 in the Van Tha case, either on the grounds of the implementation of this provision in this case or as a result of a violation of the conditions of withdrawal outlined in Section 83.

2. A person of Burma is generally threatened with such detention if he is brought back to Burma from the United Kingdom without a current Myanmar passport. It is unlikely that a person from Burma in the United Kingdom will be granted a passport by the Myanmar authority in London unless he can present an out-of-date passport in his name to the embassy.

4. If the Burmese authority becomes aware that a beneficiary of (1) or (2) is a unsuccessful applicant for political asylum, it is likely that this will have a significant impact on the period of imprisonment for his unauthorised departure and/or arrival. The repatriation of such a refugee from the United Kingdom would therefore be a violation of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.

The question whether this fact would come to the knowledge of the public authority must be established on the basis of the facts of the individual case, taking into account that the individual is most likely to be questioned on his or her way back. Compatibility with Burma of a non-1 or 2 individual who returns to Burma because of an application for United Kingdom nationality has not been established to be at genuine risk of being persecuted or ill-treated, even if the Burmese authority has reasonable grounds to believe that it has made such an application, unless the authority has reasonable grounds to consider him a policyholder.

Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has asserted its claims. This replaces the Immigration Judge's ruling that this appointment is admissible on both political and humanitarian grounds. What is more, it is a matter of urgency. {\a6}(1) Burma Home Office Operation Guidance Notes, June 2005. {\a6}(3) US State Department report on Burma, 2004.

{\a6}Service américain d'immigration et de naturalisation, Birmanie : Exit and return information, July 12, 2001. {\a6}(7) Burma Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act 1947 (as amended).

Auch interessant

Mehr zum Thema