Tag: Immigration

Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2005

The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will.
Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in clear violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’). As a practice, it is not peculiar to Sierra Leone, but it so widespread there and so bound up in the culture and traditions of that country at all levels that it causes difficulties in claims for asylum by young Sierra Leonean girls who fear it. As a clear violation of their Article 3 right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, it would undoubtedly amount to persecution in the general sense of that word. But, for young girls in Sierra Leone, seeking asylum in another country because they fear it, is it persecution for a Refugee Convention reason, namely because they belong to a ‘particular social group’? To establish her claim the applicant had to establish that she was a member of a particular social group. She had said that this group constituted young uncircumcised females This was not capable of being a ‘particular social group’ in law as required, and the claim failed. The respondent had in any event since granted her leave to enter on humanitarian grounds.

Judges:

Auld, Chadwick, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2005] 1 WLR 3773, [2005] EWCA Civ 680, Times 16-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
Cited – Hoxha and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Mar-2005
The claimants sought to maintain their claims for asylum. They had fled persecution, but before their claims for asylum were determined conditions in their home country changed so that they could no longer be said to have a well founded fear of . .
Cited – Applicant A and Another v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another 1997
(High Court of Australia) A Chinese asylum seeker was not entitled to refugee status on the basis of well-founded fear of persecution by forcible sterilisation by reason of his membership of a ‘particular social group’, namely all fathers of . .
Cited – Chun Lan Liu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Mar-2005
The applicant for refugee status said she had a well founded fear of persecution if returned to China, saying that as a pregnant mother of a third child, the foetus had been removed at eight months against her will. She had refused sterilisation, . .
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 . .
Cited – Bagdanavicius, Bagdanaviciene v the Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Apr-2003
The applicants sought asylum, saying they had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment by Lithuanian Mafiosi. The claims were rejected as clearly unfounded, denying any right to an appeal.
Held: The court could examine the basis upon which the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Skenderaj CA 26-Apr-2002
The applicant sought asylum, claiming to be a target of an Albanian blood feud. He appealed a finding that his claim was not for a Convention reason, and did not amount to a claim of a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his membership of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v K, Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought asylum, fearing persecution as members of a social group. The fear of persecution had been found to be well founded, but that persecution was seen not to arise from membership of a particular social group.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226155

Sinnarasa, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 19 May 2005

Mitting J said: ‘The question which I have to consider is whether on the assumed facts I have recited the claimant cannot, on any view, succeed or her claim is so wholly lacking in substance that it is bound to fail.’ and ‘I have found this a far from easy question to answer. This case, in my view, comes very close, indeed, to the ward line but for the features that I am about to identify I have no doubt that the Secretary of State’s certification was lawful, rational and should be upheld. The features that, in my view, just take this case out of that category are these.’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1126 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Nadanasikamani v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Jan-2006
. .
Cited – Yogachandran, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Feb-2006
The applicant appealed rejection of his claim for asylum.
Held: ‘the claimant has wholly failed to demonstrate, even to the very low level of possibility which suffices to quash a certificate, that there is any risk to him if he is returned to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226112

I and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 27 May 2005

The applicants had sought asylum. The respondent wished to detain them. They said that they were under the age of 18, which would require them to be released. The respondent obtained expert reports from a senior consultant paediatrician experienced in this issee. Those reports confirmed them to be likely to be under 18. The respondent did not release them, but detained them for a further month obtaining a report from a social worker. That report confirmed the report of the paediatrician.
Held: The respondent’s behaviour was irrational. It was not reasonable, having taken advice at the senior level, to have then continued the detention of the youths awaiting a report from a much less well qualified social worker.

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1025 (Admin), Times 10-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council Admn 14-Jul-2003
The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226110

Koca v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SCS 27 May 2005

Judges:

Lord President And Lord Clarke And Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 41

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

see also – Koca v Secretary of State for the Home Department SCS 22-Nov-2002
Judicial Review of a Determination of an Immigration Appeal Adjudicator dated 7th February, 2002 refusing the petitioner’s claim for asylum . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225340

Yilmaz v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 26 May 2005

The applicant had sought and been granted temporary leave to stay pending the checking of his documentation. He overstayed, and when he applied to stay permanently he was treated as an illegal immigrant.
Held: He had been properly so treated. A temporary admission merely allowed him not to be detained whilst the document check was made. The breach of a condition of that release made his presence illegal.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1068 (Admin), Times 27-Jul-2005

Links:

Bailii

Immigration, European

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225288

NM and others (Lone Women, Ashraf) Somalia CG: IAT 31 Mar 2005

Citations:

[2005] UKIAT 00076

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – ZO (Somalia) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 28-Jul-2010
The Directive gave certain rights to asylum applicants. The claimants had applied for asylum, and on failing in their applications, renwewed them, claiming the rights under the Directive again. The respondent said that the rights applied only on a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224741

YB (Allegations against Adjudicator: Presidential Note) Jamaica: IAT 1 Feb 2005

Appeal from a decision of an adjudicator (Mr EH Woodcraft), sitting at Bradford on 23 March 2004, dismissing an asylum and human rights appeal by a citizen of Jamaica, now 24. Permission to appeal was given on the basis of a claim apparently suggesting that the adjudicator had refused to hear a witness for the claimant.

Citations:

[2005] UKIAT 00029

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222892

MM (Certificate and Remittal, Jurisdiction) Lebanon: IAT 31 Jan 2005

‘The Appellant is a Lebanese citizen who claimed asylum in 2000 and was refused asylum in May 2001. When refusing asylum, the Secretary of State certified the asylum claim under paragraph 9(4)(b), Schedule 4 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Those provisions relate to the asylum claim. There are other provisions within paragraph 9 which relate to human rights claims but which were not referred to in the Secretary of State’s letter.’

Citations:

[2005] UKIAT 00027

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222874

AB and others (Risk- Return – Isreali Check Points) Palestine: IAT 1 Feb 2005

The Tribunal considered ‘whether there is a real risk of persecution of a returned failed asylum seeker of Palestinian ethnicity from the Occupied Territories at the point of return when he will have to pass through a checkpoint manned by the Israeli Authorities in order to regain the West Bank or the Gaza Strip as the case may be. ‘

Citations:

[2005] UKIAT 00046

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222878

IM (Medical Facilities, Bensaid) Kosovo: IAT 17 Jul 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 02727

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221864

SS (Moslem, False Charges) India CG: IAT 1 Aug 2002

Appeal, with leave, against the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Respondent to issue removal and refuse asylum.
Held: Arising from the outstanding charges against him, there was no real risk on return to India of persecution for his religion contrary to the 1951 Convention, or of a breach of his human rights under Articles 2, 3 or 6 of the 1950 Convention. For these reasons this appeal was dismissed.

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 03340

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221903

LS (Persecution, Cio) Zimbabwe CG: IAT 1 Aug 2002

Appeals, with leave, against the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse leave to enter and refuse asylum.
Held: ‘ The CIO routinely commits serious human rights abuses, which include torture. This is one of the reasons why the Respondent is not returning anyone to Zimbabwe at the present time. Given the CIO interest in the Applicant and their suspicion that he might be involved with the enemies of the regime, we conclude there is a real risk, even after some 3 years, that he will suffer ill-treatment in interrogation amounting to persecution, on account of his perceived political opinion, as well as ill-treatment in breach of Article 3. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed.’

Judges:

Mr S L Batiste (Chairman)

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 03342

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221897

Gezer v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2004

Judges:

Mr Justice Elias Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1730

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gezer v Secretary of State for Home Department and others CA 2-Apr-2004
Application adjourned pending decision of House of Lords . .
Appeal from – Gezer, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 14-Apr-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220344