R Ali-Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMR JUSTICE CRANSTON
Judgment Date07 November 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] EWHC 3534 (Admin)
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Docket NumberCO/5342/2011
Date07 November 2011

[2011] EWHC 3534 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Cranston

CO/5342/2011

Between:
The Queen on the Application of Ali-Ali
Claimant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendant

Miss S Jegarajah appeared on behalf of the Claimant

Miss Z Levanthal appeared on behalf of the Defendant

MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
1

This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review.

2

The claimant —and it seems to be accepted —is a Bidoon from Kuwait. He claimed asylum on 20 April 2011 when his fingerprints were taken. There was a match by the EURODAC fingerprint database to a person who had claimed asylum in the Netherlands. There was a screening interview on 4 May when the claimant said that he had left Kuwait in mid-April and he travelled to the United Kingdom on an unknown airline. He said in that interview that he had been previously fingerprinted in Greece and in Holland. He said also that he had been returned to Kuwait in December 2010. He mentioned his sister who apparently has some sort of leave to remain in the United Kingdom. At that point he did not specifically claim that he had applied for asylum in the Netherlands.

3

Because of the Dublin II implications, there was a formal request to the Dutch authorities asking them to accept responsibility. The Dutch authorities accepted responsibility under the Dublin II Regulation on 12 May. The Secretary of State then refused the asylum claim in the United Kingdom and certified the case on third country grounds.

4

On 27 May the claimant's solicitors wrote that although the claimant had claimed asylum in the Netherlands his claim had been refused and that he was ordered to leave the Netherlands by court order. A translated copy of that order was enclosed with the solicitor's letter. The document is brief, to say the least, and simply orders the claimant to leave the Netherlands. There is no explanation as to whether or not that was because the claimant had claimed asylum and it had been refused, or that there was some other reason for his exclusion.

5

The Secretary of State responded to the letter from the claimant's solicitors. In her refusal letter dated 1 June the Secretary of State set out the claimant's case as contained in his solicitor's letters, referred to the Dublin II Regulation and said that —the Dutch authorities having accepted the Secretary of State's request —the asylum claim was being refused on third country grounds. The letter added that the Dutch authorities were properly responsible for the consideration of the claimant's asylum claim:

"That your client's asylum claim in the Netherlands may have been refused is not a point of issue. The Dutch authorities agreed to take back your client for the specific purpose of considering his asylum claim. And it is open to your client to make an asylum claim upon arrival in the Netherlands and this will be properly considered."

6

The argument advanced put before me by Miss Jegarajah is to the effect that the United Kingdom recognises Kuwaiti Bidoons as refugees whereas, on the evidence, the Netherlands does not. The order from the Dutch authorities to leave the Netherlands meant that the asylum claim was being refused. Implicit in that refusal by the Netherlands authorities was that this claimant's claim had been refused and that the Netherlands did not recognise the Bidoons as refugees. Thus, submitted Miss Jegarajah, the Dutch asylum procedures were not safe. He had been ordered to leave the Netherlands and return to Kuwait where he was persecuted. The Netherlands were in breach of their obligations in international law. This case was distinguishable from the authorities because here there was an individualised basis for submitting that the Netherlands was not safe, given that he had been ordered to leave.

7

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT