SM (Section 8: Judge’s process)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | C M G OCKELTON,DEPUTY PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKAIT 116 |
| Date | 05 July 2005 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
[2005] UKAIT 116
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Mr C M G Ockelton (Deputy President)
Miss E Arfon-Jones (Deputy President)
Mr A Jordan (Senior Immigration Judge)
For the Appellant: Mr A Bandegani of Refugee Legal Centre
For the Respondent: Mr G Phillips, Home Office Presenting Officer
SM (Section 8: Judge's process) Iran
Even where section 8 applies, an Immigration Judge should look at the evidence as a whole and decide which parts are more important and which less. Section 8 does not require the behaviour to which it applies to be treated as the starting-point of the assessment of credibility.
The Appellant is a citizen of Iran. She claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on 18 October 2004, saying that she had arrived that very day. After examining her claim, the Secretary of State refused it on 16 December 2004 and on 17 December 2004 he decided to give directions for her removal as an illegal entrant. She appealed. Her appeal was heard by an Adjudicator, Mr J D Atkinson, on 28 February 2005 and, in a determination sent out on 7 March 2005, he allowed her appeal. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, which was granted. Following the commencement provisions of the 2004 Act, that grant takes effect as an Order for reconsideration by this Tribunal of the Appellant's appeal to the Adjudicator.
The Adjudicator's findings of fact are set out in paragraph 29 of his determination in the following terms:
“The Appellant was born on 7 April 1955 in Abadan, Iran. The Appellant is a member of the Lorr Bakhtiari ethnic group who live generally in the north of Khozestan. On 4 May 1980 the Appellant's husband was executed by the authorities because of his political opinion. On 28 November 2003 the Appellant's son, Mohamedreza Sardsirian Junaki, was arrested and detained by the authorities for his political activities. On 24 March 2004 Mohamedreza Sardsirian Junaki fled Iran. H was subsequently granted asylum in the United Kingdom on 26 May 2004. On 9 April 2004 the Appellant was arrested and detained by the authorities. The Appellant was detained until 15 July 2004 during which time she was beaten, raped and ill treated. On 18 September 2004 the Appellant was re-arrested and detained until 25 September 2004. During the detention period the Appellant was raped and hanged by the neck until she lost consciousness. The Appellant was released on her signature of a blank piece of paper. On 5 October 2004 the Appellant left her home town and travelled to Tehran. From there, the Appellant made arrangements with the assistance of her family to leave the country. On 18 October 2004 the Appellant arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed asylum the same day.”
Those findings are stated to be based on the totality of the evidence before him, including oral evidence from the Appellant and her son, and documentary material submitted by both parties. In his analysis of that evidence, the Adjudicator considers submissions made to him on behalf of the Secretary of the State that the evidence, or an important part of it, was not entitled to credit, because it was vague, or implausible, or showed inconsistencies. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of his determination, the Adjudicator specifically rejects those submissions item by item. Before setting out his final conclusions as to fact, the Adjudicator also alludes to section 8 of the 2004 Act, which was already in force at the time he heard this appeal. In paragraph 28 of his determination, he states that he has taken into account all relevant matters under that section, “including all matters pertaining to her account of travelling from Iran to the United Kingdom”. He finds, nevertheless, that the evidence before him is consistent, detailed, plausible and supported.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...seems to me to accord with the view of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal itself at paragraph 10 of its determination in SM (Iran) [2005] UKAIT 00116. Lord Justice Carnwath 25 I agree with both judgments. ...
-
Hs and Six Others v Immigration Appeals Tribunal
...[1963] UKHL 2; [1964] A.C. 40; [1963] 2 All E.R. 66; (1963), 61 LGR 369, referred to. (21)SM (Section 8: Judge’s process) Iran, [2005] UKAIT 00116; [2005] Imm. A.R. 673; [2006] INLR 149, considered. (22)Seddon Properties Ltd. v. Environment Secy., [1978] 2 EGLR 148; (1981), 42 P. & C.R. 26,......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2022-11-30, PA/12547/2017
...Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 should be taken only as part of a global assessment of credibility and is not the starting point SM [2005] UKAIT 00116. Nevertheless, having considered the evidence overall, I find the delay in the claim for asylum weighs against the appellant. On considerat......
-
KB (First Appellant) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...tasks. And, in light of Tribunal and Court of Appeal authority on the proper application of s.8 ( SM (Section 8: Judge's process) Iran [2005] UKAIT 00116; JT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 878), the categories of behaviour that this section identifie......