R (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2242 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/641/2004 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 30 April 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 2242 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Sullivan
CO/641/2004
The CLAIMANT appeared in person through an interpreter (MR M HAYATH)
MS S BROADFOOT (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse the claimant's claim for asylum and to certify that claim and an associated human rights claim as clearly unfounded. The effect of the certificate is to prevent the claimant from appealing against the Secretary of State's decision whilst he is in the United Kingdom. It is the certification that is the subject of these proceedings.
The claimant arrived in the United Kingdom on 3rd December 2003 and claimed asylum. He is a Bihari who comes from Bangladesh. The refusal letter dated 28th January 2004 explains that he was born in the Geneva Refugee Camp, Dhaka, and had lived in the camp all his life. He had complained that supporters of both the Awami League and the BNP had attacked him because he, as a Bihari, was not a citizen of Bangladesh. The refusal letter describes the circumstances of the Biharis. They are sometimes known as the stranded Pakistanis, the non-Bengali Muslims who have emigrated to what used to be East Pakistan during partition in 1947.
The decision letter gives a number of reasons why the Secretary of State rejected the refugee claim. In summary they were: firstly, that the attacks on the claimant by "terrorists" were random acts by individuals, not a sustained pattern or campaign of persecution by the authorities or which was knowingly tolerated by the authorities; secondly, it was said that the claimant should have tried to seek redress through the Bangladesh authorities; but, thirdly, it was also said that the claimant would be able to move away from the Camp where the problems had occurred, so that there was somewhere within Bangladesh, which has an estimated population of over 128 million, where he would be safe.
If this is right, then it is an answer to the claim. Mr Khan has told me that it is not right and he says that as a Bihari he would not be safe anywhere in Bangladesh. In effect he is saying that most, if not all, Biharis are simply not safe anywhere in Bangladesh. As Stanley Burnton J pointed out when refusing permission on the papers, that argument by Mr Khan does not accord with the objective material as summarised by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the case of Azam [2002] UKIAT 05810. That appellant, Mr Azam, was a Bihari who had been the subject of attacks. The Tribunal, in dismissing his appeal, said that the background evidence did not establish that all Biharis were at risk of persecution or treatment contrary to their human rights. The Tribunal said that the CIPU report referred to as many as 300,000 Biharis still living in camps around Bangladesh, with the total Bihari population being in the order of half a million. Some of that population had moved out of camps and were living and working alongside local people, according to the CIPU report.
Ms Broadfoot has pointed out that since the Tribunal's decision in Azam in late December last year the High Court in Bangladesh has allowed a small number of Biharis to assume Bangladeshi citizenship and have voting rights. Mr Khan says that those are simply very rich people. The majority of Biharis are poor and are not able to have such rights. The fact remains that the Secretary of State was entitled to say, on the strength of the decision in Azam, that being Bihari in itself was not a ground for granting refugee status.
The claimant is in no different position from Biharis in Bangladesh generally and, while they undoubtedly have difficulties, simply being a Bihari in Bangladesh does not entitle the claimant to refugee status. No doubt there are difficulties in moving outside the camps but there are a number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial