Persecution grounds form the foundation of every asylum claim under the Refugee Convention 1951. Article 1A(2) defines a refugee as a person with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. UK law implements these grounds through the Qualification Directive, as retained and applied in domestic legislation. Persecution expert witnesses provide the independent analytical framework that tribunals require to assess whether a claim meets these grounds.
The Refugee Convention 1951: Five Grounds
Each Convention ground requires a distinct analytical approach. The persecution must be for reasons of the Convention ground (the nexus requirement), must reach the persecution threshold, and must create a well-founded fear of future persecution on return. The table below summarises each ground, leading authority, and the expert's role in tribunal proceedings.
Swipe horizontally to view full table
| Ground | Definition | Key Cases | Expert Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political Opinion | Actual or imputed political views | RT (Zimbabwe) [2012] | Analyse risk from political profile |
| Religion | Belief, practice, or imputation | Article 9 QD; HJ (Iran) parallel | Assess persecution severity and state protection |
| NationalityRace / Nationality | Ethnic, racial, or national identity | Country-specific CG cases | Establish targeting of ethnic/national group |
| Particular Social Group | Shared protected characteristic + social perception | HJ (Iran) [2010]; PSG cases | Define PSG; assess social perception in COO |
| LGBTQ+ (via PSG / religion) | Sexual orientation and gender identity persecution | HJ (Iran) [2010] | Apply HJ (Iran) standard; assess open living risk |
The Non-State Actor Framework
Persecution is not limited to harm by state agents. Article 6 of the Qualification Directive defines actors of persecution to include non-state actors where the state is unable or unwilling to provide effective protection. Non-state actors include criminal gangs, terrorist organisations, family members, community groups, and vigilante groups. MOJ (Somalia) [2014] established the methodology for assessing state protection in non-state actor cases.
Two requirements must be satisfied: the non-state conduct must reach the persecution threshold, and the persecution must be for a Refugee Convention reason. Persecution experts assess both elements, analysing whether the state has genuinely failed to protect the appellant from Convention-related harm. See our dedicated page on non-state actor persecution.
State Protection Analysis
State protection analysis is central to both refugee claims and non-state actor persecution. The three-part test requires assessment of whether a protection mechanism exists, whether it is effective in practice, and whether the specific appellant can access it.
Swipe horizontally to view full table
| Element | Question | Expert's Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Existence | Does a protection mechanism exist? | Legal and institutional analysis |
| Adequacy | Is protection effective in practice? | Field research and documented outcomes |
| Accessibility | Can this individual access it? | Profile-specific and location-specific |
Internal Relocation Alternative
Internal relocation (internal flight alternative) asks whether the appellant could safely and reasonably relocate within their country of origin. The test has two limbs: viability (the appellant would not face a real risk of persecution in the proposed area) and reasonableness (relocation would not be unduly harsh).
Persecution experts provide profile-specific internal relocation analysis. For LGBTQ+ claims, gender-based violence, and ethnic persecution, generic country-level conclusions are insufficient. The expert must assess whether the appellant's persecutors could locate them, whether Convention-based risk persists nationwide, and whether societal persecution would follow relocation.
The Persecution Threshold: What Counts as Persecution
Not all mistreatment constitutes persecution. Article 9 of the Qualification Directive defines acts of persecution as sufficiently serious violations of fundamental human rights. Discrimination becomes persecution when it reaches this threshold of seriousness. A single act may suffice where it is sufficiently severe; alternatively, a systematic pattern of less severe acts may cumulatively reach the threshold.
Cumulative Persecution
Cumulative persecution arises where individually insufficient acts of harm, when considered together, reach the persecution threshold through a systematic pattern of discrimination or mistreatment. Persecution experts assess whether the cumulative effect of documented harm, societal exclusion, economic deprivation, and state inaction constitutes persecution for the specific appellant profile.
Expert Report Standards in the Immigration Tribunal
Expert witnesses in immigration proceedings must maintain impartiality. Their primary duty is to the tribunal, not the instructing party. Reports must comply with Immigration Tribunal Practice Direction paragraph 10 (2023).
Expert Reports in the Immigration Tribunal (October 2025), the Adam Pipe guide, brings together relevant material and resources to assist in the preparation of high-quality expert evidence and to support practitioners in improving the standard of expert reports and in drafting effective letters of instruction. Persecution expert reports should address Convention grounds, state protection, internal relocation, and provide a reasoned opinion supported by cited sources including CPINs, UNHCR reports, NGO documentation, and tribunal decisions.
For detailed guidance on report structure and the instruction process, see how persecution expert reports work, country expert witness network, and how to instruct a persecution expert.