MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians – KK, IH, HE reaffirmed)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Senior Immigration Judge Nichols |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKAIT 14 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
| Date | 29 June 2007 |
[2008] UKAIT 14
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Senior Immigration Judge Mather
Senior Immigration Judge Nichols
Mr J H Eames
For the Appellant: Mr D Blum, Counsel, instructed by Knights Solicitors
For the Respondent: Miss E Laing, Counsel, instructed by The Treasury Solicitors
MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians — KK, IH, HE CG reaffirmed) Lebanon CG
i. The differential treatment of stateless Palestinians by the Lebanese authorities and the conditions in the camps does not reach the threshold to establish either persecution under the Geneva Convention, or serious harm under paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules, or a breach of Articles 3 or 8 under the ECHR.
ii. The differential treatment of Palestinians by the Lebanese authorities is not by reason of race but arises from their statelessness.
iii. The decision in KK, IH, HE (Palestinians-Lebanon-camps) Jordan CG [2004] UKIAT 00293, is reaffirmed.
Both appellants in these appeals are stateless Palestinians from Lebanon. They both appealed on asylum and human rights grounds against a decision of the respondent to refuse to grant them asylum under paragraph 339 of HC 395. The appeals were both dismissed. The evidence of both appellants was found, for the most part, not to be credible. The sole issue in the appeals on which reconsideration has been ordered is whether or not the appellants as stateless Palestinians would suffer discrimination on return to Lebanon that would amount to persecution or breach their Article 3 or Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”). The Tribunal has already considered the issue in KK, IH, HE (Palestinians-Lebanon-camps) Jordan CG [2004] UKIAT 00293, and the purpose of this hearing was to consider whether the current evidence now establishes that Palestinians living in Lebanon face discriminatory conditions that do amount to a persecution and/or a breach of their Article 3 and Article 8 rights under the ECHR.
The Adjudicator as he then was, Mr G.M. Petherbridge, heard the first appellant's appeal on 4 December 2003. The appellant was born on 24 April 1972 in El-Buss refugee camp, Tyre Province, Southern Lebanon. He went to primary school while living in that camp and completed his secondary school education in the Burj El-Shemali refugee camp. He studied biology at the Arab Beirut University in 1993 but did not complete his studies because he claimed that he decided to join the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (Fateh) in 1995. He claimed that he had undertaken military training at the Al-Rashidieh Refugee Camp and that he worked as a guard for the PLO. He claimed he was a follower of Sultan Abdul Aynian, the leader or a leading official of the Fateh group in southern Lebanon. Sultan Abdul Aynian was wanted by the Lebanese government on suspicion of the commission of criminal offences. The Lebanese authorities kept a checklist of followers of Sultan Abdul Aynian at the checkpoints outside the refugee camps and would arrest anyone with such an association if they decided to leave the camp. In June 1999 two of the appellant's friends, who were also members of the Fateh, were arrested trying to leave the camp and were never heard of again. The appellant, fearing that he would also be arrested, used an agent to get him out of southern Lebanon and claimed that the agent had facilitated his safe passage through a Lebanese checkpoint. The appellant travelled through Europe. He arrived in the UK on 17 December 1999 and he applied for asylum.
The Adjudicator accepted that the appellant was what he described as a first sergeant guard in Fateh, but rejected his evidence as to the reasons why he fled the refugee camp, finding he was not a credible witness and that he had not established any reasonable likelihood that he had been persecuted because of his membership of Fateh.
The Adjudicator was also asked to consider the appellant's claim that he would face discrimination and ill-treatment amounting to persecution and a breach of his human rights. In this regard he found:
-
“50. A further strand to the appellant's claim is based upon whether the discrimination and ill-treatment of Palestinian refugees by the Lebanese authorities amounts to persecution.
-
51. In her submissions, Miss Sheikh has suggested that this persecution has been suffered by the appellant as part of a particular social group. It seems to me that if I were to find that the discrimination suffered by the Palestinian refuges amounted to persecution then accepting as I do that the appellant is a Palestinian refugee, his claim must succeed both under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the 1950 Convention.
-
52. However, on the facts before me I do not consider that the appellant has been discriminated against to an extent that amounts to persecution.
-
53. The appellant and his family have lived in the Palestinian refugee camp, certainly for the whole of the appellant's life. The appellant's family have two different houses in different refugee camps. The appellant himself was educated to a point where he was able to go to university. He chose not to pursue that because of his wish to join Fateh in one of the refugee camps. He had no problems with the authorities until 1998, which eventually I did not accept as being truthful. [A reference to the appellant's 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 economic, social and cultural benefit as between Lebanese nationals and/non nationals or stateless persons.
-
56. There is nothing in the appellant's evidence that supports any claim that he has been discriminated against other than very general assertions that Palestinian refuges had limited employment opportunities. The fact is that this appellant was employed, was paid for that work and supported within the refugee camp. At the same time he was able to travel backwards and forwards to his parent's house in another one of the refugee camps. He was educated and could have gone to Beirut University. His parents in fact had two houses in separate refugee camps.
-
57. None of this is predicated on the finding that the appellant had been discriminated against and therefore I would reject any claim on behalf of this appellant that he has been discriminated against to an extent that would amount to persecution as acknowledged by the 1951 Convention that would accord him refugee status. As I reject therefore the appellant's asylum claim for the reasons as set out above, so I would reject any claim under Article 3 of the 1950 Convention.”
It was on these findings that the Tribunal, on the application of the appellant, ordered reconsideration because it was considered arguable that the Adjudicator's findings about the level of discrimination in Lebanon against Palestinians were not clear. We should just make one point at this stage. At paragraph 8 of Mr Blum's skeleton he makes reference to the Adjudicator's finding that the appellant's family had two homes and says:
There was no evidential basis for this conclusion (see paragraph 43 of the determination)
In fact the Adjudicator's finding was made as a result of oral evidence given by the appellant and is referred to in his in record of proceedings. The appellant was asked where his parents lived and he said Rashidieh camp. He confirmed that this was where he was employed as a guard with Fateh and he said that they had two houses, i.e. the family. The family had moved to Rashidieh camp after he left. The family had lived in Burj el-Shemali camp before that.
The second appellant was born on 16 June 1975 in Burj el-Shemali refugee camp in southern Lebanon. He lived there with his family, parents, three brothers and four sisters. He was educated to primary and high school level and then enrolled on a two year carpentry course at the Siblin Training Centre run by the United Nations. He graduated from the course there in 1993. He then worked for a French company in the Burj el-Shemali refugee camp called Du-Garif, where he was employed as a carpenter.
He claimed that he had been a political activist with Fateh since 1993. He said he had been the victim of targeting by other factions of the Fateh movement and that as a result of the problems he had fled Lebanon at the end of June 1998. He arrived in the UK on 5 July 1998 and immediately claimed asylum. The Adjudicator as he then was, Mr M.A. Khan, heard the appellant's appeal on 7 May 2004. He found the appellant was not a credible or consistent witness. He disbelieved his account that he had been a political activist with the Fateh movement. He failed, however, to make any finding on a submission made before him as to the discrimination likely to be suffered by the appellant on return to Lebanon. The appellant's representatives applied for permission to appeal as it then was on 15 September 2004, which was granted only on the discrimination point. The appeal comes before us now of course as a reconsideration.
There is no issue between the parties that both Adjudicators did make a material error of law, which was the first issue for the Tribunal to decide. In relation to the first appellant's appeal this was by the failure of the Adjudicator properly to address the issue of discrimination, and in relation to the second appellant's appeal, by the failure of the Adjudicator to deal with a...
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))
...} a:link { color: #0000ff } Asylum and Immigration Tribunal MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians – KK, IH, HE CG reaffirmed) Lebanon CG [2008] UKAIT 00014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2007 Before Senior Immigration Judge Mather Senior Immigration Judge Nichols Mr J H Ea......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2018-12-20, PA/00392/2017
...hearing. Finally, the Secretary of State contended, in reliance on MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians, KK, IH, HE reaffirmed) Lebanon CG [2008] UKAIT 00014 (again, inadequately cited in the grounds) that differential treatment of Palestinians by the Lebanese authorities did not reach the lev......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-02-26, PA/00521/2016 & Ors.
...therefore took an incorrect to the country guidance decision of MM and FH (stateless Palestinians, KK, IH, HE reaffirmed) Lebanon CG [2008] UKAIT 00014. However, as Ms Everett pointed out at the hearing, a great deal of the material set out by Dr George predates the decision in MM and FH. F......
-
WD (Lebanon – Palestinian – ANO – risk)
...giving rise per se to breach of the appellant's human rights, this issue having been recently determined by the Tribunal, (in MM and FH [2008] UKAIT 00014) he asked whether with regard to the camps in general the appellant's presence was likely to become known to other political factions su......