Nagat Baghat Asadal Kazie v Secretary of state for the home department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1984 |
| Date | 08 February 1984 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
D L Neve Esq (President), Mrs J D Caine, L W Chapman Esq.
A Riza of Counsel for the appellant.
N Neathey for the respondent.
Political Asylum Respondent conceded appellant had genuine fears of persecution but maintained the fears were not well founded Appeal against refusal of application dismissed by adjudicator who was not satisfied even on balance of probabilities Whether adjudicator had applied the wrong test in determining whether the fears were well founded or not HC 169 para 134.
The facts are set out in the determination.
Held: (i) Whilst cases relating to political asylum occurred in a context different from those arising from the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 they were in some respects (e.g.a person's freedom of movement) analogous.
(ii) The speech of Lord Diplock in Fernandez v Government of Singapore and othersUNK [1971] 2 All ER 691, a case in which the House of Lords considered the provisions of section 4(1) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, offered the most valuable guidance as to the test to be applied in the present case.
Determination
The appellant, who has a Turkish father and a Kurdish mother, is a citizen of Iraq. He arrived in this country in September 1977 when he was admitted as a visitor for two months. He suffers from a congenital deformity, having very short arms and only two fingers on each hand. He was granted extensions of stay to enable him to explore the possibility of possible surgery in connection with his deformity. Later he was granted extensions of stay because he had been involved in a motor car accident and became involved in litigation in consequence. The last extension granted for this purpose expired on 20 July 1982. On 19 July 1982 solicitors on his behalf applied for a further extension and in the course of the ensuing correspondence they claimed political asylum on his behalf. This claim was investigated by the Secretary of State but the application was refused on 21 March 1983 because, in the words of the notice of refusal, The Secretary of State is not satisfied that your fear of persecution is well founded. The appellant appealed to an adjudicator against this refusal. His appeal was heard by Mr M Patey, MBE, and was dismissed on 13 October last. Against Mr Patey's determination he now appeals to the Tribunal.
The principal reasons leading to the Secretary of State's decision to refuse the appellant's application are contained in paragraphs 14, 16 and 17 of the Home Office explanatory statement which reads as follows:
14. The appellant and his Solicitor claimed that he was being harassed by the Iraqi authorities in London since 1979; that they had accused him of being a spy, that they followed him around and that they questioned other Iraqis about him. Both the appellant and his Solicitor were hazy about the details but said that a written summary of the occurrences was being sent to the Home Office. When asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Jonah
...R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mawji [1982] Imm AR 97. Nagat Baghat Asadal Kazie v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1984] Imm AR 10. Political Asylum — whether evidence that an applicant would have to abstain from political activity to ensure his safety amounts to perse......