KH (Somalia) v Secretary of State fo the Home Depatment
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Toulson |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 324 |
| Date | 23 February 2009 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2008/2587 |
[2009] EWCA Civ 324
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No: AA/00592/2008]
Lord Justice Toulson
Case No: C5/2008/2587
Mr C Yeo (instructed by Messrs Lawrence Lupin) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
Lord Justice Toulson:
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of Designated Immigration Judge Manuell dismissing the appellant's appeal against the Home Secretary's rejection of his claim for asylum or humanitarian protection. The case came before the immigration judge for a full rehearing after a previous immigration judge had dismissed the appeal but reconsideration had been ordered.
The appellant was born in Somalia in 1990. He arrived in the UK by air from Cairo on 21 November 2007 and claimed asylum. He was then aged 17. The claim was rejected by the Home Secretary by a letter dated 16 January 2006. The appellant claimed to belong to the Ashraf clan, sub-clan Hassan. His family lived in Mogadishu surrounded by Hawiye neighbours. The appellant's account was that in 2000 his father was killed by the Hawiye. In cross-examination he said that he was present at his father's killing and was beaten with a rifle butt. His sister, one year older than the appellant, was abducted on the same occasion. She returned home in 2001 in poor health and suffering from epilepsy as a result of ill-treatment. They were poor but they managed to survive by their mother making sweets or pastries which she would sell in the market.
Things improved temporarily in 2006 when the ISU (the Islamic Courts Union) came to power and the appellant found a job. But when Ethiopia invaded Somalia, the ISU tried to enlist young men into the military by force. The appellant resisted and was imprisoned. He was released by the Ethiopians but later he was accused by them of being an ISU supporter and was beaten. In November 2007 ten Ethiopian soldiers came to their house. He was accused of helping the ISU. His sister was raped. He was taken away and put on a lorry with other young men for removal to prison. Their hands were tied and they were guarded on the journey by armed guards. However, when the vehicle stopped he and another young man managed to escape by loosening their ties and jumping over the back. The other young man was shot but the appellant made a successful escape and hid among cacti. He later chanced to meet a neighbour who guided him home. His mother said that he must leave Somalia at once. On the following morning they met an agent who brought him on the same day to the UK. When he met the agent she had the necessary papers and ticket, for which his mother paid. At Heathrow he lost sight of the agent but claimed asylum.
The Home Secretary disbelieved his claim for a number of reasons. When questioned about Mogadishu and the area around it, he was unable to identify any famous Mosque, or say where the railway station was, or name any hospital or give the name of the presidential palace. He could not identify the region of Somalia that Mogadishu was in or name the nearest major town. His knowledge of his claimed clan was in the view of the Home Secretary more limited than would have been expected. The Home Secretary also considered it implausible that he left his mother and sister in the circumstances which he described. If his account of those circumstances was true, at least he would have gone with them to neighbouring Kenya before travelling on to the UK. The immigration judge rejected his appeal on credibility grounds.
The notice of appeal is in three parts. It alleges: (1) a failure to make essential findings of fact; (2) a failure to give adequate reasons; and (3) errors in approach to the making of factual findings.
As to the first, it is said that in paragraphs 33 and 34 the immigration judge identified what he regarded as unlikely features of the appellant's account of his escape from Ethiopian soldiers on the day before he left Somalia, but stopped short of a finding that the account did not satisfy the required low standard of proof. That is too narrow a reading of the determination. What the immigration judge did was to assemble a number of points from which he concluded, in the second numbered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Zargul Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...what is needed is the stringent threshold of conspicuous unfairness, as summarised in the decision of the Court of Appeal in SH v Q2 [2009] EWCA Civ 324 which summarises earlier authorities of the court, and particularly in the judgment of Laws LJ 3 at paragraphs 44 [to] 49.. or whether the......
-
R Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...what is needed is the stringent threshold of conspicuous unfairness, as summarised in the decision of the Court of Appeal in SH v Q 2009 EWCA Civ 324, which summarises earlier authorities of that court, and particularly in the judgment of Laws LJ at paragraphs 44 do 49, which have been help......