Look, you are just wrong, so let it go. You do not seem to understand this, either that or you just don’t bother to read the actual opinion –
Did you even bother to read the Opinion??? Or did you just pick out a single phrase at the top that seemed to support your position? You have to actually read the case and understand the fact pattern and understand the way the court based its decision.
The court stated upfront quite clearly, "The position might be otherwise in the case of someone who, notwithstanding a failed claim for asylum, would still be perceived on return to Syria as a supporter of the Assad regime.
"
You have to actually read the case. The appellant left Syria to avoid being arrested because he was at a demonstration demonstrating for regime change and the police broke it up. His cousins had been arrested. 15 of his friends were arrested and he left Syria just before the security police came to his house with an arrest warrant. After he left the country the security police went to his house several times looking for him to arrest him. They detained his brothers .
THATS THE BASIS OF HIS POLITICAL OPINION IMPUTED POLITICAL OPINION. You do NOT need to be a known member of a political party or have a “known political affiliation” but of course you need to have shown some real basis for having an opposition political opinion or for being perceived as having that opinion (or being an oopressed minority like a kurd as the court pointed out) and therefore a basis for fear of future persecution. Being at a demonstration against the regime and having the police arrest your family members and have a warrant for you and come to arrest you does it. Clearly
That he would then be flagged upon his return to Syria because he applied for Asylum adds to the likelihood that he would be picked up police and arrested of course. And it might add to the likelihood of his being persecuted. But that is not the basis of the political opinion claim. I always add , when arguing these cases, that the asylum applicants leaving the country and returning (even without the asylum application) would be a flag for the police to notice him But you also have to have some basis for the claim .
He was denied asylum below because the judge did not believe his testimony and did not believe his claim about his political activities: Because in many asylum cases there is no actual evidence the credibility of the respondent’s testimony is crucial and a judicial finding of lack of credibility often is the reason for the denial
“But Judge Canavan was “unable to accept that the authorities came to know about his political activities and approached his family in the way that he says.” Indeed, she made an overall negative credibility finding:”
“n the absence of any further evidence to support his claim I find that serious doubts are raised about the credibility of the core aspects of the appellant’s account. His account of his political activities has been vague and his actions in obtaining a passport and applying for entry clearance do not indicate that he was of any interest to the authorities at the time. His subsequent actions in returning to Syria and then travelling back to Lebanon, and his behaviour on arrival in the UK, are not consistent with someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution. His account of the authorities showing interest in his family after he left the country has been confused and contradictory and I found his evidence on this issue to be unclear and unreliable. I conclude that, in the absence of any further evidence, I am unable to accept the core aspects of the appellant’s account even on the low standard of proof. The appellant has failed to establish the overall credibility of his account. His actions show that his main motivation for coming to the UK appears to have been to learn English and find work”
Look, again, you are just wrong and frankly either do not understand the law or did not bother to read the case. So stop this. Please. You are like a dog with a bone. But its just silly and indicative of nothing but your lack of understanding of this case and the law.
Show me a case where the court says “yes, we find the appellant had no credibility was clearly not telling the truth about his political activities and basis for his claim but hey he applied for asylum so we have to grant his asylum” Because that is the argument you are tryying to make and its silly.