How We Assess Return Risk: Expert Witness Methodology

Last updated: 30 September 2026

Photo: No Human Is Illegal - Alisdare Hickson

How do expert witnesses really decide if someone is at risk on return? Our return risk methodology is a clear, seven-step process. It moves from the person's own profile to wider country facts, and back again. The goal is simple. We want to give the court a fair, careful, and honest answer to one big question: What is likely to happen to this person if they go home now? This guide explains each step in plain English. It also shows the sources we trust and the legal standards we follow.[1]

Risk is never a guess. Strong expert evidence rests on a clear method. So we use the same steps for every case, no matter the country. This makes our work easier to test, and easier for judges to trust. For more on the legal background, see our asylum guide.

Step 1: Build the Individual Risk Profile

The first step is to understand the person. Risk is not about the country alone. It is about how this specific person fits into the country picture. So we read every page of the case file. This includes the asylum statement, interview records, supporting letters, and any past evidence. We look for clear risk markers.[2]

Key questions in this step include: What is the person's ethnicity, religion, and language? What is their political profile? Did they hold a public role? Did they work for the government, a foreign force, or an NGO? Are they a woman, an LGBTI+ person, or part of another at-risk group? Do they have visible scars, tattoos, or documents that link them to past activity? The answers shape every later step. Without a clear profile, no real risk analysis is possible.

Step 2: Country Conditions Analysis

Next, we study the current country picture. We look at security, politics, rule of law, and human rights. We use a wide mix of sources to avoid bias. No single source can give the full picture. So we combine UN reports, NGO research, peer-reviewed studies, and trusted news. We always note the date of each source. Material older than 12 months needs a clear reason to be used.[3]

Our core sources include UNHCR eligibility guidelines, OHCHR reports, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Freedom House. We also check Home Office Country Policy and Information Notes and US State Department Human Rights Reports, while testing them against independent material. You can read selected refugee guidelines on Refworld. For more regional analysis, see our country reports.

Step 3: Pattern Matching

This step links the person to documented patterns of harm. A general country report says "journalists are at risk." But that is not enough on its own. Our job is to see if this specific person fits the pattern of those harmed. So we line up the person's profile against confirmed cases. We ask: Have others with this profile been arrested, tortured, or killed? How recent are these cases? How widespread are they?[4]

Pattern matching uses many sources. We look at NGO case studies, news reports, court records, and direct accounts from in-country contacts. We map the timeline. We note locations. We compare risk markers. The result is a clear picture: this person closely fits a documented at-risk group, somewhat fits, or does not fit. We always show the reasoning, so the court can test it. We follow tribunal practice on weighing evidence; you can review tribunal decisions on BAILII.

Step 4: Legal Framework Analysis

Risk is not only about violence. It also comes from laws. Many countries have laws that target dissent, certain religions, or LGBTI+ people. So we study the legal framework that could be used against the applicant. We read the actual text of the laws. We look at sentences. We track recent cases. This work needs language skills and legal training.[5]

Examples include blasphemy laws, anti-LGBTI+ laws, broad "national security" statutes, and exit-control rules. We check how these laws are applied in practice, not just on paper. Some laws are rarely used, while others lead to long prison terms. We document both the formal text and the real enforcement record. UK and US judicial guidance supports this approach. See judiciary.uk and uscourts.gov for related practice notes.

Step 5: Return Scenario

What happens at the airport? At the border? On the way home? In the village or city? These questions matter. Many people face the highest danger in the first hours after return. So we map the full return journey, step by step. We use case studies, NGO reports, and direct testimony from returnees.[6]

The return scenario covers airport screening, identity checks, possible detention, family or community response, and longer-term life. Some governments have lists of opponents. Others share information across agencies. We describe the practical steps the person would face. We avoid drama and stick to what evidence supports. The aim is to give the judge a clear, realistic picture of the first days and weeks after return.

Refugee status determination requires a forward-looking assessment of risk based on the situation in the country of origin and the personal circumstances of the applicant.
UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, paras 42–43

Step 6: Internal Relocation Viability

Governments often argue that a person can move to another part of their country to avoid harm. This is called "internal relocation" or "internal flight alternative." It can defeat an asylum claim. So we look at it carefully. Internal relocation must be both safe and reasonable. Safety means the harm cannot follow the person. Reasonableness means the person can actually live a normal life there.[7]

We test the proposed area against many factors. Can the person travel there safely? Do they have family or networks there? Can they find work and housing? Are they part of a group that faces discrimination across the country? Will the persecutor have national reach, or only local power? We also check the practical route. A "safe" city that requires crossing a war zone is not a real option. Strong relocation analysis takes courts beyond simple maps.

Step 7: State Protection Assessment

The final step asks: Can the home state protect this person? Asylum is needed when the state cannot or will not protect. So we check whether protection is real. Sometimes the police are the persecutor. Sometimes laws exist on paper but are not enforced. Sometimes courts are corrupt or controlled by the same actors who threaten the applicant.[8]

We look at police records, court statistics, NGO reports, and the practical experience of past complainants. We also review reform programmes and their real impact. The test is not whether some protection exists. The test is whether a person with this profile can get effective protection in this country, today. If the answer is no, the asylum claim is strong on this ground alone.

Our 7-Step Methodology at a Glance

Our Sources and Standards

We also follow the rules that govern expert evidence. In the UK, this means CPR Part 35 and Upper Tribunal Practice Direction 10. In the US, this means Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. You can read FRE 702 on Cornell Law. These rules require independence, reliable methods, and clear sourcing. Our methodology is built around these standards. To request a country expert who applies this method to your case, see our expert witness directory.

Conclusion

Return risk is one of the hardest questions in asylum law. The answer is never simple, and it is never a guess. Our seven-step methodology gives a clear, repeatable framework that judges can trust. Each step builds on the last. The personal profile drives the country research. The country research feeds the pattern matching. The legal review and the return scenario then show the practical danger. Internal relocation and state protection close the analysis. So the final report is grounded in evidence, not opinion. For wider context on rights and protection issues, see our human rights resources.