R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Celal Yurekli
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1990 |
| Date | 15 February 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Otton J
A Nicol for the appellant
Miss A Foster for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Jonah [1985] Imm AR 7.
Marion Gaima v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1989] Imm AR 205.
Political asylum — refusal by Secretary of State — Alevi Kurd — Turkish national — applicant persecuted in home village — not persecuted on removal to Istanbul albeit still disadvantaged — whether Secretary of State entitled to take amelioration of applicant's circumstances in Istanbul into account — whether refusal unreasonable. HC 169 para. 134. United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees (1951), Protocol (1967) art. 1A(2)
The applicant was an Alevi Kurd, a national of Turkey who had been refused political asylum, for which he had applied on arrival in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State accepted that in his home village, the applicant had been persecuted. However he had moved to Istanbul, leaving his wife and children in the village. In Istanbul he had not been persecuted, although he had been unable to secure permanent employment, being it was said dismissed whenever his origins were discovered. The Secretary of State concluded that the harassment to which the applicant had been subjected in Istanbul did not amount to persecution. Counsel argued, relying on Jonah that the Secretary of State had taken too narrow a view: moreover it was not necessary for a person to show that he would be or had been persecuted in all parts of his native country to qualify as a refugee. The Secretary of State had also treated the applicant unfairly, following Gaima, in that he had not afforded the applicant an opportunity to comment on facts from which the Secretary of State had drawn adverse conclusions as to the appellant's credibility.
Held:
1. On the facts, there had been no unfairness. It was clear, distinguishing this case from Gaima, that credibility had played only a minor part in the assessment which had led to the Secretary of State's decision.
2. If it were possible for the applicant to live in another part of his country without persecution that was a factor the Secretary of State was entitled to take into account.
3. The Secretary of State's decision was not flawed by unreasonableness or otherwise.
Otton J: This is an application for leave to move for judicial review of the decision of the Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs dated 7 December 1989 in which he refused the applicant's application for asylum.
The applicant is a Kurd: he arrived in the United Kingdom from Istanbul, Turkey, on 12 June 1989 and applied for political asylum. The matter was considered and he had the assistance of the impressive Rights and Justice Group. He was, having been interviewed on 10 October, seeking political asylum in this country. It is quite clear from the record of that interview that he was given every opportunity to state his case. The record has been placed before me and the material parts of it most helpfully pointed out to me by Mr Nicol.
A day earlier Rights and Justice had written a letter in which they had set out the merits of the application. They are of such a nature that I think even on an application they should be read. It was stated:
‘Mr Yurekli comes from Becekli Village, Zara, in the province of Sivas. The village is entirely Kurdish and Alevi, but is surrounded by Turkish villages. An army unit is based 3 km away and soldiers come to the village on average once a week, round up the young men in the village on the pretext of seeking political activists, and regularly detain and torture them. On 24 March 1982 there was an incident in the village in which the army fought members of the Dev-Sol organisation, two of whom were wounded.
Mr Yurekli is a sympathiser of Dev-Sol, which is a banned revolutionary workers party. Mr Yurekli was introduced to the party in 1977, since when he has regularly provided food, shelter and money to Dev-Sol activists in the village.
In addition to this, the fact that he is Kurdish and Alevi has meant that he has consequently been the vicitm of arbitrary detainment, torture and prejudice. On 2/4/1982, 8/4/1985 and 20/5/1987 he was taken into custody and interrogated on the whereabouts of Dev-Sol elements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Robinson
...only by a 15 mile walk through the jungle; on the other hand in both R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Yurekli [1990] Imm AR 334 (Otton J), [1991] Imm AR 153 (CA), and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Gunes [1991] Imm AR 278 (Simon Brown J) the courts he......
-
R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Ayse Oran
... ... R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte K [1990] Imm AR 393 ... Celal Yurekli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1991] Imm AR 153 ... Political asylum application refused notice of refusal failed ... ...
-
El-Tanoukhi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...applicant R Jay for the respondent Cases referred to in the judgments: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yurekli [1990] Imm AR 334: [1991] Imm AR 153. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Gunes [1991] Imm AR 278. R v Secretary of State for the Home D......
-
The Queen v The Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another
...of the decision both at first instance and by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yurekli [1990] Imm AR 334, [1991] Imm AR 153. It is sufficient to cite this short passage from Otton J's judgment at first instance: 'If it was possible for the app......