The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s certification under s94 that his cliam for asylum was hopeless. He said that he had acted as an informer against criminal gangs in Jamaica, and that the state of Jamacia could not provide him effective protection if he was returned.
Held: Where a stste, though doing its best, fell below the basic standard of protecting its own citizens, it was arguable that a certificate should not be issued. The threshold to allow a certificate had not been crossed. The judge had to ask how an appeal to an adjudicator would be likely to fare.
Judges:
Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Wall Lord Justice Scott Baker
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 846, Times 20-Jul-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Atkinson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Regina (on the application of L and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 2003
The court considered the circumstances under which a certificate that an asylum claim was clearly unfounded could be issued: ‘[In considering s115] the decision maker will (i) consider the factual substance and detail of the claim (ii) consider how . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar CA 19-Jun-2003
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Ruslanas Bagdanavicius, Renata Bagdanaviciene v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Nov-2003
Failed Roma asylum applicants challenged an order for their return to Lithuania. There had been family objections to the mixed marriage leaving them at risk of violence from the local mafia, and an order for their return would infringe their article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.198605