MB (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Gloster |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 1153 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C2/2014/1809 |
| Date | 15 July 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Civ 1153
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Gloster
C2/2014/1809
Mr E Fripp (instructed by Morden Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
(This transcript has been prepared without the assistance of court bundles)
The applicant in this application for permission to appeal is a national of Pakistan born on 8 August 1962. I order that anonymity is to continue in this case.
The applicant seeks permission to appeal from the decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Lane given orally on 9 May 2014 and notified in writing on 21 May 2014 to refuse permission to the applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the respondent Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 14 November 2013, declining to accept that the applicant had shown a fresh claim to protection for the purposes of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules HC395. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the Upper Tribunal.
The applicant's application was refused on the papers by Vos LJ. In refusing permission to appeal, Vos LJ set out his reasons, and in particular said:
i. "The applicant sought to base her claim for judicial review on the revised country guidance in MN and others (Ahmadis — country conditions — risk) Pakistan CG [2012] UKUT 00389 (IAC). But applying paragraphs 118–127 of that decision to the findings of fact made by the First Tier Tribunal Judge, there is no real prospect of a different decision being reached. The UT Judge was right to find that the respondent had correctly summarised the test applicable in MN by reference to the paragraph 2(1) behaviour. Neither the new evidence advanced nor the new country guidance in MN gave the applicant any real prospect of successfully judicially reviewing the decision of the respondent to refuse to treat the submissions as a fresh claim to asylum."
In a helpful statement produced in compliance with paragraph 16 Practice Direction 52C to CPR part 52, Mr Fripp, counsel for the applicant, has set out in some detail the reasons why both the Upper Tribunal judge and, in his submission, Vos LJ are wrong to conclude that there is no reasonable prospect of success on an appeal in this matter.
The applicant's case essentially depends upon what Mr Fripp contends is the changing understanding of the law following decisions of the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31, [2011] 1 AC 596, and RT (Zimbabwe) [2012] UKSC 38; [2013] 1 AC 152.
Mr Fripp submits that if one reads MN and others in conformity with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial