R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Sivanentheran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1997 |
| Date | 21 May 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Lord Bingham of Cornhill C J Millett, Potter LJJ
I Macdonald QC and C Williams for the applicant
S Kovats for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgments:
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Vijendran (unreported, QBD, 15 January 1997.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Sivapathem Sivanentheran (unreported, QBD, 12 February 1997).
Sheikh Mohammed Ikhlaq and anr v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1997] Imm AR 404.
Ahmed (unreported) (13371).
Asylum reasonableness of internal flight option extent of appellate authorities obligation to enquire into general circumstances and those particular to the applicant in assessing reasonableness. HC 395 para. 343.
Renewed application for leave to move for judicial review of the refusal of the Tribunal to grant leave to appeal against the dismissal by a special adjudicator of the applicant's appeal against the refusal of the Secretary of State to grant him asylum: leave had been refused by Forbes J.
The adjudicator, relying on Ahmed, had declined to take into account the provisions of HC 395 paragraph 343. He had however considered the circumstances in which the applicant would live if he were to remain in Colombo and not return to the north of Sri Lanka where (in August 1996) he feared persecution by the LTTE.
Counsel argued that the adjudicator has misdirected himself in law and had failed fully to consider the question of the reasonableness of return to Colombo.
Held:
1. The adjudicator had misdirected himself in law in declining to consider paragraph 343 of HC 395.
2. Nevertheless he had considered the reasonableness of return to Colombo.
3. It was not the obligation of the appellate authorities to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the quality of life which a returning asylum seeker might expect to enjoy in the part of his home country to which it was proposed to return him: Vijendran not followed. The appellate authorities were only obliged to address those features of conditions in the proposed destination which were said to render his return inappropriate or unreasonable.
The Lord Chief Justice: This is a renewed application for leave to move for judicial review, following refusal of leave by Forbes J. The decision which it is sought to challenge is a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing leave to appeal against the decision of a special adjudicator. The decision of the special adjudicator against which the applicant sought leave to appeal was the dismissal of his appeal against an immigration officer's refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom on asylum grounds.
The applicant was born on 3 March 1975 and is therefore now aged 22. On a date which is not entirely clear (but which one assumed was at the end of 1994 or early 1995) he arrived in the United Kingdom from Sri Lanka and claimed asylum. On 3 March 1995 he was formally refused leave to enter this country. He appealed against that decision to a special adjudicator and his appeal was dismissed on 23 August 1996. He sought leave to appeal against that decision and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused him leave to appeal on 18 September 1996. He then sought leave to move for judicial review and leave was refused by Forbes J on 12 February 1997.
We have had the opportunity of studying the decision of the special adjudicator, which must be read in conjunction with the definition of a refugee which, for the purposes of the 1951 Convention is contained in article 1A as amended by the Protocol. The familiar definition provides that a refugee is any person who
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Robinson
...Ikhlaq and anr v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1997] Imm AR 404. Sivapathem Sivanentheran v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1997] Imm AR 504. Dupovac (unreported) (11846). Ahmed (unreported) (13371). Ikhlaq (unreported) (13679). Nirmalan (unreported) (14361). Asylum — internal fl......
-
Olawale v Refugee Applications Commissioner & Minister for Justice
...S2 Z V MIN JUSTICE 2002 2 ILRM 215 CAMARA V MIN JUSTICE UNREP KELLY 26.7.2001 2000/4/1247 SIVANENTHERAN V IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL 1997 IMM AR 504 ZGNATEV V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP FINNEGAN 29.3.2001 HORVATH V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2000 WLR 379 2000 3 AER 577 2000 INLR......