The applicant challenged refusal of his asylum application saying that the court had failed to take account of the fact that as a homosexual moslem, he would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The IAT had not properly recognised that at the time of the appeal its jurisdiction was limited to points of law only. Even so a point of law had arisen, which the IAT had not dealt with: ‘It has quite improperly carried out a fresh assessment of the merits of the appellant’s asylum and human rights claims. That is not its task under the 2002 Act. ‘ The adjudicator had failed to recognise properly the difficulties which would be faced by a homosexual muslim in the Lebanon. The appeal was allowed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Scott Baker Sir Mark Potter President of the Family Division
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 893
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Miftari v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-May-2005
The court emphasised the limited nature of the IAT’s jurisdiction under the 2002 Act, which is now restricted to considering points of law only: ‘Since the IAT now has jurisdiction to determine only points of law, it cannot put itself in the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Christiana Robinson (Aka John) Admn 7-Dec-1998
. .
Cited – Railtrack Plc (In Railway Administration) v Guinness Limited CA 20-Feb-2003
The case involved an appeal from the Land’s Tribunal arbitration award setting compensation for land to be acquired. The question was whether the value should have been that acceptable to a willing seller, or to a ‘a company regulated and subsidised . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur HL 20-Dec-2000
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228942