The asylum seeker appealed rejection of her request not to be returned home. The decision letter had applied the test under Hariri.
Held: The decision letter invoked the wrong test. Since the Hariri case the case of Batayav had clarified the correct standard. The applicant did not need to show a probability of harm but rather a real risk, which was a lower threshold. Had the letter not reffered to the standard to be applied, the decision might have still been correct, but it could not stand.
Judges:
Munby J
Citations:
Times 03-May-2005, [2005] EWHC 881 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Zorig Batayav v the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The case of Hariri had set too high the threshold for the level of threat which would need to apply as to the propriety of returning an asylum applicant to his home country. The correct test is that the applicant need show a ‘real risk’ of har. This . .
Cited – Hariri v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-May-2003
It would be inappropriate to order the return of a failed asylum seeker to a country where there was a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violation of fundamental human rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.224896
