PT (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY,LORD JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Civ 104 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C5/2006/2396, C5/2006/2396(A) |
| Date | 31 January 2007 |
[2007] EWCA Civ 104
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No. AA/06325/2006]
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London, WC2
Lord Justice Tuckey
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
C5/2006/2396, C5/2006/2396(A)
THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal by PT from the decision of a senior immigration judge, confirming the decision of an immigration judge who dismissed the applicant's appeal from the decision of the Secretary of State rejecting his claims for asylum and human rights protection.
The applicant is a citizen of Eritrea who entered the United Kingdom illegally on 3 May 2006. He claimed asylum on the grounds that he was a Pentecostal Christian and a deserter from the army. It was common ground that if either of these grounds were true it would not be right to return him to Eritrea. However, the Secretary of State did not accept that they were true. Nor did the immigration judge who found that the applicant's account was a fabrication designed to gain access to the United Kingdom.
Put shortly, both the Secretary of State, following interviews with the applicant and the immigration judge, after hearing the applicant give evidence, rejected his account because he lacked knowledge of the Pentecostal faith and could not have been a deserter from the army when he left Eritrea at the end of March 2006 because he would have completed his military service well before that time. In his decision the immigration judge spelt out his reasons for rejecting the applicant's account on these matters in some detail and gave other reasons for doubting his credibility. A sustained attack was made on these findings by the applicant's representative before the senior immigration judge, but on his reconsideration of the matter he upheld the immigration judge's decision.
The applicant's grounds of appeal were settled by counsel and supported by a skeleton argument which she had prepared. These grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Wellcome Trust Ltd v Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
...Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (as amended). This decision was upheld as a guideline decision in the Court of Appeal [2007] EWCA Civ 104, [2008] 1 WLR 2142. 5 The Lands Tribunal considered three components of the deferment rate, namely, the risk free rate, the real growth rat......