R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, ex parte Sandralingam and Another ; R v Same, ex parte Rajendrakumar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1995 |
| Date | 27 February 1995 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Laws J
I Lewis 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 adjudicator obliged to deal with every collateral aspect of the case whether adjudicator entitled to consider issues at the date of hearing whether Tribunal's reasons for refusing leave adequate. Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993: International Convention on Civil and Political Rights* (1966) art. 9.
Application for leave to move for judicial review of the refusal by the Tribunal to grant leave to appeal from the determination of an adjudicator dismissing the applicant's political asylum appeal.
The applicant was a young male Tamil from Sri Lanka. He had been rounded-up on two occasions in security sweeps by the authorities: his brother was alleged to have disappeared after being taken by the Sri Lankan army. The adjudicator concluded that the experiences of the applicant when rounded-up in security sweeps did not constitute, in the circumstances, persecution: he found there was not a serious possibility of a recurrence. He looked at the circumstances obtaining in Sir Lanka at the date of hearing.
Counsel argued that in the light of article 9 of the 1966 Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the adjudicator had erred in not concluding that the applicant's experiences had not amounted to persecution. He had made no reference to the fate of the applicant's brother. He had misdirected himself in law in looking at the circumstances as they obtained at the date of the hearing when he should have confined himself to circumstances at the date of the Secretary of State's decision. The Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for refusing leave to appeal.
Held
1.The adjudicator was entitled to conclude, in all the circumstances, that the round-ups of young male Tamils did not constitute persecution.
2.It was not necessary for the adjudicator to deal with all collateral aspects of the case, for example, the fate of the appellant's brother.
3. Obiter it was inconceivable in a political asylum appeal that an adjudicator was to ask himself a question not about the present but about the past, I cannot believe that the appellate authorities should do anything other than ascertain when a case comes before them, whether the appellant with whom they are dealing is then and there a person with a well-founded fear of persecution.
4.In any event, in the instant case, there was no evidence to show there were significant differences in relevant circumstances between the date of decision and the date of hearing.
5. The reasons given by the Tribunal were adequate. An important purpose of detailed reasons is to enable an affected party to see whether the decision in question ought properly to be amenable to appeal or other legal proceedings: but for this applicant and others in the same position, to ascertain whether he had a proper case for judicial review, the court has only to look at the decision of the adjudicator. The applicant was not prejudiced by the brief reasons given by the Tribunal.
Laws J: This is an application for leave to move for judicial review in relation to a decision taken by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to refuse the applicant leave to appeal against a decision made by the special adjudicator upon the applicant's appeal to him, against the Secretary of State's own decision, refusing him political asylum.
The Secretary of State's decision was made on 20 November 1993. The special adjudicator's decision was made after a hearing on 18 January 1995 and notified on 1 February 1995. The decision under challenge, that of Mr Maddison of the Tribunal, was made on 17 February 1995.
The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka and a Tamil. His case before the Secretary of State and the appellate authorities was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to be returned to Sri Lanka.
The first ground of challenge argued before me is that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was in breach of a duty owed by it to give proper reasons for its decision refusing leave to appeal. I think it more convenient to deal, first, with the substantive assaults made on the first instance decision of the adjudicator.
Mr Lewis submits, first, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ravichandran ; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sandralingham
... ... ) Joseph Lawrence Rajendrakumar ( Applicant ) and on Appeal Tribunal Secretary of State for the Home ... Immigration Act 1971 s. 19; Asylum and Immigration Appeals ... All these cases raised essentially the same issue. All three appellants had left the area of ... Immigration [1993] 109 DLR (4th) 682, another Sri Lankan Tamil asylum case. The judgment of the ... ...
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Onibiyo
...date for present purposes: ( R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Rajendrakumar unreported, 11 October 1995, Court of 61There is, however, no evidence that the applicant's father has been detained, and the Nigeria High Commission has publi......
-
Borissov v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...the judgments: Lawrence Assah v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1994] Imm AR 519. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Rajendra Kumar [1995] Imm AR 386. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mohammed Dauda (No 2) [1995] Imm AR 600. Appeals Tribunal jurisdiction whether the Tribunal was ......
- R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, ex parte Sandralingam and Another ; R v Same, ex parte Rajendrakumar