UTIAC (i) In HH (Somalia) v Secretary of State [2010] EWCA Civ 426 at para 84 the Court of Appeal when referring to the Claimant raising a cogent argument that there might not be a safe route of return was not setting down a threshold requirement for cogent evidence before it was open to the Tribunal to consider the issue but making the point that the issue need only be considered if there was a proper evidential basis for doing so.
(ii) In the light of the comprehensive rejection of the appellant’s credibility, the issue of the safety of returning from Mogadishu to Afgoye had to be assessed in the light of the general background evidence on this issue: MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State [2010] UKSC 49 applied.
(iii) The general evidence before the Upper Tribunal failed to establish that generalised or indiscriminate violence was at such a high level along this route that the appellant would face a real risk to his life or person entitling him to a grant of humanitarian protection.
Lord Bannatyne, Latter SIJ
[2011] UKUT 54 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – HH (Somalia) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Apr-2010
There is no right of appeal against directions of a ‘technical’ nature in relation to the removal, such as the specifying of a particular ship or aircraft and other detailed ‘mechanics’ of return or ‘technical’ matters . .
Cited – MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Nov-2010
The asylum applicant had been found to have lied to exaggerate the risk of persecution if he was returned to Somalia. The Court was now asked as to the relevance of that finding, and as to the legitimacy of an appeal court interfering with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.428698