DA (Return to South Unduly Harsh?)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | John Freeman,Mrs W Jordan |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] UKIAT 22 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Date | 11 October 2017 |
[2003] UKIAT 22
In The Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Immigration And Asylum Acts 1971–99
John Freeman (chairman) and Mrs W Jordan
Miss G Patel (counsel instructed by Ramsbottom & Co, Blackburn) for the appellant
Mr J Wyatt for the respondent
DA (Return to South Unduly Harsh?) Iraq
This is an appeal from a decision of an adjudicator (Mr AJ Blake), sitting at Taylor House on 8 November 2002, dismissing an asylum and human rights appeal by a Kurdish citizen of Iraq. Leave was given on the basis that the adjudicator did not consider properly whether effective protection would be available: that means against breach of the appellant's human rights, because the adjudicator had agreed with the certificate on the asylum appeal. What he had then done, however, was to dismiss the human rights grounds without reviewing their merits. If those have already been fully discussed on the asylum appeal, that may be perfectly all right; but this adjudicator had dismissed that mainly for want of a Convention reason.
There was a report before us from a Miss SJ Laizer dated 27 June: though it only arrived on the morning of the hearing, Mr Wyatt was prepared to consider it, in the interests of finality, and so were we. It mainly deals with the risks she says this appellant would face on return to the KAA [Kurdish Autonomous Area]. That was the only destination (however hypothetical) under the previous Home Office policy on returns to Iraq. We drew Miss Patel's attention to the current Home Office policy on returns to Iraq, set out at § 5.2 of the CIPU bulletin 4/2003 (June 2003):
Enforced removals will be effected as soon as it is practicable to do so. There are several potential routes including to or via Baghdad or Basra, or directly to airports in Mosul or Erbil where humanitarian passenger flights are currently landing.
As Miss Patel rightly conceded, there is nothing in Miss Laizer's report (or any other material to which she was able to refer us) to suggest any present real risk for someone like this appellant on return to anywhere outside the KAA. She nonetheless asked us to send the case back for rehearing by an adjudicator. If she had been able to make a case for something in the appellant's individual history leading to a present real risk on return on the background evidence as it stood, then...
To continue reading
Request your trial