Nepal and Bhutan present unique challenges for UK asylum practitioners because neither country has current UK Upper Tribunal country guidance. Without binding country guidance, tribunals must rely on the quality and independence of expert evidence to assess country conditions and individual risk.
Nepal claims arise from Maoist-linked persecution (both victims of Maoists and former combatants facing retaliation), Dalit caste discrimination, ethnic minority persecution (Madhesi, Tharu, Janajati), and political persecution of journalists and human rights defenders.
Bhutan claims primarily involve the Lhotshampa (ethnic Nepali minority expelled in the 1990s), continuing discrimination against Nepali speakers, Buddhist religious minority claims, and political dissident persecution. Claim volumes are low but cases are often complex.
Expert witnesses for Nepal and Bhutan cases should have field research experience, language capability (Nepali, Dzongkha), and academic expertise in the relevant political, ethnic, or caste dynamics. Reports must be particularly rigorous given the absence of country guidance presumptions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is there no UK country guidance for Nepal?
The UK Upper Tribunal has not issued binding country guidance on Nepal conditions. This means tribunals assess Nepal claims entirely on the merits of the evidence presented, making independent expert reports especially important compared to countries with established country guidance like Sri Lanka.