R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Mehmet Yaziki
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 1994 |
| Date | 05 October 1994 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Auld J
M Soorjoo for the applicant
I Burnett for the respondent
No cases are referred to in the judgment
Political asylum appeal dismissed by special adjudicator refusal by Tribunal of leave to appeal Tribunal's determination of application allegedly a standard formula whether use of such a standard formula proper whether reasoning adequate.
The applicant for leave to move for judicial review was a Turkish Kurd. He had been refused political asylum by the Secretary of State and his appeal to a special adjudicator was dismissed. He sought leave to appeal to the Tribunal. His application was refused. Before the court counsel argued that the adjudicator had not considered whether Kurds per se were a persecuted group. He also submitted that the determination by the Tribunal of the application for leave to appeal was inadequate: it followed what seemed to be a standard formula and gave insufficient reasons.
Held
1. The adjudicator had not overlooked the issue of whether Kurds per se were a persecuted group: he had implicitly considered that but had concluded that the applicant's account of events was not credible.
2. The Tribunal's approach, in the circumstances of the case was not improper. They had correctly concluded that there was no error of law in the adjudicator's determination.
Auld J: The applicant is a Kurd who fled to this country from Turkey. His application for asylum was rejected by the Secretary of State who took the view, and said so in his decision letter, that neither by virtue of being a Kurd, nor by virtue of his own particular circumstances, had he a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason if he were to be returned to Turkey.
The applicant appealed to a special adjudicator. The appeal was heard by two adjudicators successively, the determination of the first having been set aside. The second adjudicator, in a most detailed and careful determination, set out the arguments and the evidence on both sides of the appeal. He referred to the point made on behalf of the applicant that Kurds are vulnerable simply by being Kurds in Turkey. There was a body of documentary evidence put before him to that effect. He also referred in considerable detail to the account given by the applicant and, incident by incident, firmly rejected his account. He found his evidence throughout to be incredible. Towards the end of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Nalokweza
...Imm AR 45. Gnanavarathan and Norbet v A Special Adjudicator [1995] Imm AR 64. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mehmet Yazik [1995] Imm AR 98. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Kabuiku (unreported, QBD, 24 February 1995). R v Secretary of State for the Home Depa......
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, ex parte Sandralingam and Another ; R v Same, ex parte Rajendrakumar
...for the applicant S Kovats for the respondent Case referred to in the judgment: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mehmet Yaziki [1995] Imm AR 98. Political asylum whether adjudicator entitled to conclude that round-ups of young male Tamils did not amount to persecution whether adjudi......
-
R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Mehmet Beyazit
...applicant Miss L Giovannetti for the respondent Case referred to in the judgment: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mehmet Yaziki [1995] Imm AR 98 Appeal dismissed by adjudicator application for leave to appeal to Tribunal extensive and detailed criticism of adjudicator's determinati......