Somali National Loses High Court Bid To Restore Refugee Status After Three-Month Trip Home

A Somali national has lost his High Court bid to have his refugee status restored after travelling to Hargeisa, Somalia, and spending three months there, with the court finding that he had voluntarily re-availed himself of his country’s protection.

The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed Ahmed Mohammed Ali’s application to review and set aside the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs’ decision to withdraw his refugee status.

In a recent judgment, Judge Mokate Victor Noko found that Ali had failed to challenge one of the legal grounds on which his refugee status was withdrawn. The court also concluded that his visit to Hargeisa amounted to re-availment of protection under the Refugees Act.

The judge found that the decision to withdraw his refugee status was rationally connected to the information available to the authorities and that there was no evidence of bias.

Fraudulent Certificate Leads To Withdrawal Proceedings

Ali, a Somali national who entered South Africa in 2008 after fleeing persecution by Al-Shabaab, was granted refugee status on 7 October that year.

After living in South Africa, he applied to be certified as an indefinite refugee, a process that could eventually allow him to apply for permanent residence.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Home Affairs Withdraws Asylum Directive After Soweto And Durban Unrest

The court heard that Ali enlisted the services of a person who claimed to be an immigration agent and promised to expedite his application.

He subsequently obtained a certificate and applied for permanent residence on 15 December 2017.

However, while processing the application, the Department of Home Affairs discovered that the certificate was fraudulent. His permanent residence application was rejected on 9 July 2018.

Authorities later initiated proceedings to withdraw his refugee status, citing the fraudulent certificate.

On 5 March 2024, Ali received a notice of the intention to withdraw his refugee status and was invited to submit written representations.

During an interview on 7 November 2024, authorities established that he had travelled to Hargeisa on 2 March 2017 and returned to South Africa on 15 May 2017.

The authorities regarded the trip as re-availment of protection under the Refugees Act.

The legislation provides for refugee status to cease in certain circumstances where a person voluntarily re-avails themselves of the protection of their country of nationality.

Ali Says He Travelled To Visit His Dying Father

Ali disputed the authorities’ interpretation of his trip, arguing that he had neither sought nor obtained effective protection from Somalia.

He maintained that Hargeisa was in a “no-man’s land”, which he described as Somaliland.

In his court papers, Ali explained that he had travelled to Hargeisa to visit his terminally ill father, who died and was buried on 13 May 2017.

He argued that his three-month stay should not be interpreted as re-availment of protection because the trip was motivated by humanitarian circumstances.

His legal representative, J Malapane, argued that the authorities had failed to establish the requirements for withdrawing refugee status on the basis of re-availment.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: EThekwini Man Arrested After 11-Year-Old Stepdaughter Reports Alleged Sexual Abuse

The lawyer further contended that the decision was irrational, that the authorities were reasonably suspected of bias and that withdrawing Ali’s refugee status violated the principle of non-refoulement.

The principle prohibits returning refugees to countries where they face persecution or other qualifying serious harm.

Judge Rejects Explanation As An Afterthought

However, Judge Noko found that Ali had not mentioned visiting his sick father in the written representations he submitted to the authorities in May 2025.

The explanation only emerged in his court papers in February 2026.

The judge questioned why Ali had failed to disclose the reason for his visit when he initially had an opportunity to challenge the proposed withdrawal of his refugee status.

Noko described the explanation as an afterthought and an attempt to mould his case to fit the requirements of the United Nations refugee framework.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Home Affairs Withdraws Asylum Directive After Soweto And Durban Unrest

The judge also rejected the argument that the three-month stay could be regarded as an occasional visit.

“Without more, this cannot be viewed as an occasional visit; it appears opportunistic and indefensible,” Noko said.

The court found that Ali had travelled voluntarily, knew that citizens were protected in Hargeisa and had accessed that protection.

Court Rejects Non-Refoulement Argument

Noko also dismissed Ali’s argument that deportation would violate the principle of non-refoulement.

The judge noted that South Africa did not recognise Somaliland as an independent country and treated Hargeisa as part of Somalia.

The court found that Hargeisa was safe and that citizens were protected there, concluding that Ali could be deported to that part of Somalia without violating the principle of non-refoulement.

The judge further noted that Ali’s application was bound to fail because he had not challenged the withdrawal of his refugee status on the separate ground relating to the fraudulent certificate.

Noko also found that Ali’s journey to Hargeisa fell within circumstances recognised by the Refugees Act and its regulations as re-availment of protection.

The court consequently dismissed his application to have the withdrawal of his refugee status reviewed and set aside.