An asylum claim turns on the applicant’s account, its credibility, its consistency, and its anchoring in the country’s human rights record. The statement of evidence is the most important document in any asylum file — drafted with care, it becomes the spine of the whole claim.
Immigration drafting is about dignity and detail in equal measure. The decision-maker reads many files. Chris drafts yours with the specific evidence, the applied rule, the Article 8 analysis, and the tone that respects both the applicant and the reviewer. No inflammatory language. No emotional appeals without evidence. Facts. Rule. Application. Remedy.
The legal framework
- Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) — definition of refugee
- Qualification Directive (retained) — humanitarian protection grounds
- Nationality and Borders Act 2022 — credibility framework, Group 1/Group 2 protection (now subject to further reform)
- Immigration Rules paras 334, 339C–339R — domestic expression
- ECHR Articles 2, 3 — right to life, freedom from torture
- HJ (Iran) v SSHD — sexuality / religion concealment test
The test — well-founded fear
- Real risk on return (reasonable degree of likelihood — lower than civil balance of probabilities)
- Because of a Convention ground
- No sufficient state protection
- No safe internal relocation
Structure — the asylum statement
1. Identity and background
Family, education, work, language, ethnicity, religion, political activity.
2. The events
Chronological, dated. Specific incidents — what happened, who was involved, who witnessed, what injuries/detentions/threats followed. Any documents produced or referred to.
3. The flight
How you left. By what route. What documents used. What payments made. Truth even when unattractive — inconsistencies between statement and interview destroy credibility.
4. Country evidence anchor
Cross-references to Home Office Country Policy and Information Notes, UNHCR reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, academic reports. Each claim in your account linked where possible to documented context.
5. Why return is not safe
Current risk. Non-availability of state protection. Non-availability of internal relocation. Address each with country evidence.
Let Chris draft this for you
Upload the refusal letter, supporting evidence, identity documents. Chris drafts with rule citations, Article 8 framework, country evidence (where relevant), and witness statements to counsel standard.
Credibility — the heart of most cases
Credibility attacked most commonly on:
- Inconsistencies between screening, substantive interview, and statement
- Late disclosure (s.8 Asylum and Immigration Act 2004)
- Section 1A NABA 2022 behaviour adverse to credibility
- Implausibility against country evidence
Chris drafts statements carefully to minimise avoidable inconsistency, while acknowledging genuine memory imperfections that are normal after trauma.
The substantive interview
Typically 4–8 hours. Questions detailed. Chris drafts interview preparation notes, potential questions, chronology summary, and evidence matrix — all to reduce risk of inconsistency under fatigue.
If refused — the appeal
See the First-tier Tribunal appeal guide for the appeal route after refusal.
Can Chris draft the asylum claim pack?
Yes. Upload your account, any documents you have, country context. Chris drafts:
- Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) content
- Supporting witness statement
- Country evidence bundle index
- Legal submissions on the applicable provisions
- Interview preparation notes
- Appeal bundle if refusal follows
Hybrid £1,000 for complex asylum cases where reviewer sign-off adds materially to credibility preservation.
Prepare to win. Plan not to fail.
The statement is the case. Chris drafts the statement.
Ready to draft this yourself?
Chris drafts to the Litigant Standard™. You sign. You file. Pick the tier that fits your case.