NA (Palestinians – Not at general risk)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | VICE PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKIAT 94 |
| Date | 01 February 2005 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
[2005] UKIAT 94
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Mr J Barnes (Vice President)
Mr A R Mackey (Vice President)
Professor B R Gomes da Costax
For the appellant: Mr S. Revindran from the Refugee Legal Centre (London)
For the respondent: Mr M. Blundell Home Office Presenting Officer
NA (Palestinians — Not at general risk) Jordan CG
This determination is concerned with the position of ethnic Palestinians whose former habitual residence is in Jordan, in respect of which the Tribunal had before it the following background objective evidence:
(a) US State Department Report on Jordan for 2003 published on 25 February 2004;
(b) Report from Forced Migration on Line: ‘Palestinian Refugees in Jordan' by Oroub Al Abed of February 2004;
(c) ‘Palestinians in Jordan and Egypt: Holders of Travel Documents: Their Legal Rights?' by Oroub Al Abed (undated);
(d) A report published by Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network based on a Mission of Enquiry by Mohammed Tahi and Maria de Donoto entitled ‘Refugees Also Have Rights’ on the subject of Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon and Jordan following an EMHR Mission between 17–28 September 2000.
On the basis of their consideration of these documents, this determination gives the guidance of the Tribunal as to the position of Palestinian asylum seekers from Jordan.
The appellant was born on 22 September 1954 in the Gaza Strip in a refugee camp run by UNRWA. From 1966 until 1990 he lived with his family in Kuwait when they moved there following displacement. After the first Gulf War the Kuwaiti government expelled Palestinian nationals and his family and he then moved to Jordan. The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom on 29 July 1998 with a valid Jordanian passport endorsed with entry clearance as a visitor, and he was admitted on that basis. At that time he also had an Egyptian travel document. On 31 October 1998 the appellant made an in-time application for asylum but for reasons which are not apparent, he does not appear to have been issued with a self-evidence form for completion until 21 June 2002, which was duly returned to the respondent, who subsequently interviewed him. His asylum application was refused for the reasons set out in a letter dated 14 August 2003. On the same day the respondent issued notice of his refusal to vary leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and the appellant appealed against that decision on both asylum and human rights grounds pursuant to section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
His appeal was heard on 2 December 2003 by Dr K.F. Walters, an Adjudicator, who recorded the appellant's basis of claim at paragraph 16 of his determination as follows:
‘The appellant claims that, as a result of the creation of the State of Israel, his family settled in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, registered with UNWRA, and was issued with Egyptian travel documents. After the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, his family moved to Kuwait. However, after the Gulf War in 1990, the Kuwaiti government expelled all Palestinians. The appellant travelled to Jordan. It was the only country which, at that time, would accept Palestinian nationals.
According to the appellant, after he had travelled to Kuwait, he learned that persons who had been born in the Gaza Strip were to be given a temporary Jordanian passport, issued by the Jordanian Embassy in Kuwait.
In 1989, the Jordanian Embassy in Kuwait refused to renew the appellant's passport, deciding, thereafter, to renew yearly.
In 1996, the Jordanian Government refused to renew the appellant's passport and imposed a fine upon those persons who were born in the Gaza Strip.
In September 1997, the appellant started a case to have his passport renewed and, on 16 June 1998, his passport was renewed for two years.
In 1995, the appellant's wife left Kuwait to join him in Jordan and, thereafter, her application for a Jordanian passport was refused. She was only given four months' permission to remain in Kuwait, until October 1995. However, to date, the appellant's wife was still living in Jordan, illegally, paying a penalty of 1.5 Jordanian Dinar each day. Since 1995, the Jordanian government has tried several times to deport the appellant's wife.’
The Adjudicator did not believe that account save that he was prepared to accept that the appellant is a Palestine ‘national’, born in the Gaza Strip, on 22 September 1954, and that he was currently married, had no relatives in the United Kingdom, and that his wife and children were currently living in Jordan. Beyond that the appellant's claims were rejected by the Adjudicator for the reasons which he sets out at paragraphs 17 to 20 of his determination.
The grounds of appeal do not challenge the adverse findings made by the Adjudicator in relation to his personal account, the very limited acceptance of which we have set out above. The challenges in the grounds of appeal are as follows: firstly, that the Adjudicator failed to identify the country of habitual residence in relation to which the claimed fear of persecution was to be measured; secondly, that at paragraph 15 of his determination he referred to Israel and the Occupied Territories; thirdly, that the Adjudicator was wrong in referring to the appellant as a ‘Palestinian national’ as there is no such thing and the appellant is stateless; fourthly, that the appellant's habitual residence was confused with Jordan, with specific reference to paragraphs 18 to 21 of the determination; and, fifthly, that the Adjudicator was wrong in not considering the country to which the appellant was to be removed as the removal directions were not clear in that respect.
In granting permission to appeal, the President noted that he was not clear which country the Adjudicator had in mind in assessing risk because he referred to Jordan as the country of feared persecution and return but examined Israel and the Occupied Territories for background.
It is unfortunate that the Adjudicator was not assisted by any representation for the Secretary of State at the hearing before him. The only objective evidence which the respondent had filed was a country report relating to Israel and the Occupied Territories and since, by its nature, there are no removal directions where the appeal is against a decision to refuse to vary leave to remain, the only relevant evidence from the respondent might be taken to indicate an intention on his part to return the appellant to the country in respect of which he has filed objective country evidence. Before us, Mr Blundell made it clear that the intended country of removal is Jordan, which is the last country of habitual residence of the appellant. There are only two references in the Adjudicator's determination to Israel and the Occupied Territories. The first is at paragraph 3(b) where he records that was the country in respect of which the respondent had submitted background evidence, and the second is at paragraph 15 of his determination where the Adjudicator says this:
‘In reaching my conclusion, I have taken fully into account the general country information in respect of Israel and the Occupied Territories. Whilst I am prepared to accept that in Israel and the Occupied Territories there are regular abuses of a wide range of fundamental human rights in a manner which undoubtedly gives rise to persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention in certain cases, I am quite unable to accept that this appellant has demonstrated he is at risk of persecutory harm.’
Apart from that single reference, everything else is directed to the position of the appellant in Jordan. In referring to the standard and burden of proof at paragraphs 7 to 9 of the determination, the Adjudicator says in terms at paragraph 9:
‘The burden lies on the appellant to show that returning him to Jordan will expose him to a real risk of persecution for one of the five grounds recognised in the 1951 Refugee Convention, or a breach of his protected human rights.’
At paragraph 11 he repeats, in his analysis of the appellant's claim as set out in the self-completion questionnaire, at interview, in written statements and in oral evidence, that it is based on his fear of what would happen to him ‘if returned to Jordan’.
Paragraphs 16 to 19 of the determination are concerned with setting out the basis of claim and the reasons why the claims as to what has happened to him in Jordan are rejected save for the limited positive findings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MA (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...simply have to turn back into Jordan”. On the basis of the country guidance case of NA(Palestinians – Not at general risk) Jordan CG [2005] UKIAT 00094: “… ethnic Palestinians, whether or not recognized as citizens of Jordan, are not persecuted or treated in breach of their protected human ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2007-02-20, [2007] UKAIT 17 (MA (Palestinian Arabs , Occupied Territories , Risk))
...into Jordan. The country guidance case on the situation of Palestinians in Jordan is NA (Palestinians – Not at general risk) Jordan CG [2005] UKIAT 00094. That case decided that ethnic Palestinians, whether or not recognised as citizens of Jordan, are not persecuted or treated in breach of ......
-
MT (Palestininan Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...para 62 that the position in Jordan was as described in the Country Guidance case of NA (Palestinians – Not at general risk) Jordan CG [2005] UKIAT 00094: “….ethnic Palestinians, whether or not recognised as citizens of Jordan, are not persecuted or treated in breach of their protected huma......
-
MA (Palestinian Arabs – Occupied Territories – Risk)
...into Jordan. The country guidance case on the situation of Palestinians in Jordan is NA (Palestinians – Not at general risk) Jordan CG [2005] UKIAT 00094. That case decided that ethnic Palestinians, whether or not recognised as citizens of Jordan, are not persecuted or treated in breach of ......