KRAYEM v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE RICHARDS,LORD JUSTICE CLARKE |
| Judgment Date | 04 April 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Civ 649 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C1/2002/2311 |
| Date | 04 April 2003 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 649
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Lord Justice Clarke
Mr Justice Maurice Kay
Mr Justice Richards
C1/2002/2311
MR H SOUTHEY (instructed by Wilson & Co of London) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR T EICKE (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
The appellant is a Palestinian, born in Kuwait but without Kuwaiti nationality. Before coming to the United Kingdom his place of habitual residence was Lebanon, where he was living in a refugee camp run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA). He arrived in this country in 1997 and claimed asylum on arrival. His claim was refused by the Secretary of State. An appeal to the adjudicator was dismissed and a further appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was dismissed in a decision notified on 3 October 2002. He now appeals against that decision.
Before the adjudicator the appellant put his case on three bases. First, he relied on Article 1D of the Refugee Convention. Secondly, he said that in the camp he had joined a group called El-Kifah El-Musalaah without realising it was an armed resistance group and that having fallen out with its aims he feared persecution by that group if he were returned to the same camp. The third basis was that discrimination and ill treatment of Palestinian refugees by the Lebanese authorities amounted to persecution.
The adjudicator rejected the case on Article 1D on the ground that it applied only to persons who were receiving protection or assistance from UNRWA on 28 July 1951. The point was maintained in the grounds of appeal to the tribunal but was conceded at the hearing of the appeal and is not now in issue. As to the appellant's claimed fear of persecution by the armed resistance group, the adjudicator made strong adverse findings on credibility, saying that he did not believe the appellant's account in any respect. The tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the adjudicator's judgment on that issue, and on the appeal to this court there is no challenge to that aspect of the tribunal's decision.
As to the wider question of the treatment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the adjudicator found that there might be some local discrimination against them but that even if the appellant could establish fear of persecution in one part of Lebanon internal relocation would be possible.
In the grounds of appeal to the tribunal it was contended that the adjudicator had failed to engage with arguments that the appellant feared persecution at the hands of the Lebanese authorities. In support of the appeal the appellant obtained an expert report from Mr George Joffé, who is affiliated to the Centre of International Studies at Cambridge University and is a Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. The tribunal also had before it a substantial amount of background material, including a Home Office Country Information Policy Unit (CIPU) report dated April 2002 giving a country assessment on Lebanon, a 1999 report by the US Committee for Refugees on the Marginalisation of Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon, a US State Department report on Lebanon dated 25 February 2002 and an article from a publication called "Middle East International" dated 2 June 2000.
In its determination the tribunal dealt with that issue as follows. It referred in paragraph 7 to Mr Joffé's report emphasising that it was written recently in relation to the appellant and for the hearing before the tribunal, but also observing that Mr Joffé did not appear to have visited any of the UNRWA camps and on one matter he did not appear to have read or appreciated the CIPU report. The tribunal stated in paragraph 8 that the first part of Mr Joffé's conclusions related to the situation if the appellant's story of having joined an armed resistance group was true. The second part set out the position in general, as the author saw it, for Palestinians in UNRWA camps. In paragraph 9 the tribunal quoted the following two paragraphs of the report relating to that second matter:
"'Secondly, Mr Krayem's fear of persecution must also be related to the fact that Palestinians form a group that suffers discrimination as an ethnic group in Lebanon, as this report demonstrates. Palestinians in the camps in Lebanon labour under such restrictive conditions that they breach established human rights conventions. They have to resort to practices normally considered illegal by the Lebanese authorities just to survive, particularly since legal means of survival are barred to them. Palestinians are effectively forbidden to work (although the practice of refusing work permits officially ended in 1991, the reality is that permits are still not issued to Palestinians) —so they have to resort to the parallel economy in order to survive, in addition to the minimal support provided by UNRWA, or find work abroad. Security is non-existent, as the deaths of 2,000 Palestinians in Shabra and Chatila camps in late 1982, in massacres organised by the Lebanese Phalange-Lebanese Forces and tolerated by Israeli forces in Beirut then under the overall command of the current Israeli premier, Ariel Sharon, made clear. The Lebanese authorities provide no protection within the camps and refuse to offer it to Palestinians outside the camps. Indeed, nothing has occurred since 1984 to improve security for Palestinians in the camps, beyond the activities of their own militias, and, in many respects, the situation is even worse today. Mr Krayem would not, therefore, receive adequate and appropriate protection from the state if he is returned to Lebanon, given the attitudes of the Lebanese authorities towards Palestinians.
In these circumstances, it seems to me that Mr Krayem has reasonable grounds to fear that he will face discrimination as a member of El-Kifah El-Musalaah —he will have to return to Ain al Helwa camp as he will not be allowed by the Lebanese authorities to settle anywhere else if he is returned to Lebanon and thus will face persecution.'"
The tribunal commented as follows in paragraph 10 of its determination:
"We see in those two paragraphs E G H Joffé's view of the situation of Palestinian refugees, whose former place of habitual residence is Lebanon, as a whole. The comments which he makes are related to the situation of Palestinians in general. He apparently takes the view that every Palestinian has a well-founded fear of persecution in the camps: that is because of the way the Lebanese authorities treat the Palestinians on their territory."
The tribunal noted three matters in particular. The first, in paragraph 11, was that although it was asserted that nothing had occurred since 1984 to improve security, and in many respects the situation was worse, there was no mention of any particular events since the early 1980s. The second, in paragraph 12, was that the assertion that the appellant had returned to the same camp was shown by the CIPU report to be wrong, though there were substantial practical difficulties in moving between camps. The third point, and the remainder of the tribunal's reasoning, were expressed as follows in paragraphs 13 to 15:
"Thirdly, the opinion of the Joffé letter seems to indicate generally that those in the care of the United Nations are in fact all being treated in a way which breaches the International Conventions which are at the heart of the United Nation's constitution. We are entirely unable to accept that view.
It might have been a more moderate report could have shown that a particular individual might be at risk of persecution, but we have dealt with this matter at some length in order to make it clear that the views of E G H Joffé, who wrote the report which is submitted to us, go well beyond what can be accepted as a matter of generality.
The present appellant has failed to establish the history he claims. His case falls to be considered as that of a Palestinian who faces return to Lebanon where he will be living in an UNRWA camp. Conditions are not, to say the least, ideal and no doubt he will face discrimination. But, as a person who has established only those characteristics, he has not shown that he is at risk of persecution for a Convention reason."
The appellant sought the tribunal's permission to appeal to this court on the ground that the tribunal had failed to explain why the discrimination and ill treatment he would face on return to Lebanon did not amount to persecution. In refusing permission the deputy president gave the following reasons:
"The tribunal considered the argument and materials before it and did not err in so doing. The point made in the grounds is new and comes perilously close to arguing a requirement, as a matter of law for reasons for reasons. It is not properly arguable that all discrimination amounts to persecution: the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence was that the treatment the applicant will receive on return would not amount to persecution. If this matter is to be pursued I venture to suggest that UNRWA should have an opportunity to say whether they accept that they, an organ of the UN, consider that they operate in general in breach of the UN's basic founding documents."
Permission to appeal was subsequently granted by Lord Justice Carnwath on the basis that there are reasonable grounds for arguing that the tribunal failed to explain adequately its conclusion on the issue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2008-02-25, [2008] UKAIT 14 (MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians, KK, IH, HE CG reaffirmed))
...evidence that he had been stopped leaving Rashidieh camp in 1998] 54. I have been referred to the Court of Appeal decision in [2003] EWCA Civ 649 Karyem. 55. I cannot find on the evidence before me, that the appellant has shown that he has suffered differential treatment in relation to econ......
-
HC v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...refugee camps in Lebanon. Mr Henderson criticised the lack of reasoning by the IAT and prayed in aid the decision of the Court of Appeal in Krayem [2003] EWCA Civ 649. In my view, it is arguable that the reasoning of the IAT did not meet the requirements as set out in the judgment of Richar......
-
MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians – KK, IH, HE reaffirmed)
...evidence that he had been stopped leaving Rashidieh camp in 1998] 54. I have been referred to the Court of Appeal decision in [2003] EWCA Civ 649 Karyem. 55. I cannot find on the evidence before me, that the appellant has shown that he has suffered differential treatment in relation to eco......