SS (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for The Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Thomas |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 1209 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2011/0218 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 July 2011 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 1209
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
[APPEAL No: AA/02747/2009]
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Thomas
Case No: C5/2011/0218
Mr J Adler (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
The applicant for renewed permission to appeal in this case was born in Kosovo in July 1991 He left Kosovo on 18 July 2008 and entered the UK on 21 July 2008, claiming asylum a day later. It is his case that as he is of mixed Albanian/Roma ethnicity, he has suffered at the hand of the Albanians in Kosovo significant persecution and the authorities are unable or unwilling to protect him.
After a hearing before Immigration Judge Gillespie the claimant's claim that he had suffered persecution was found credible. Although reconsideration was ordered, those findings remain preserved and are a matter that has to be borne in mind throughout.
The matter, when it was remitted to Designated Immigration Judge Woodcraft, really centred upon one issue, namely the question that was asked by the designated immigration judge, correctly in my view: could the Kosovan authorities offer effective protection and can the appellants internally relocate?
The judge had before him an expert report from a Mr Hodge, who dealt with the issues by putting forward factors to be taken into account by the judge in determining those two issues. There is no doubt in my mind that the judge considered the report very carefully and his analysis of it in the judgment is clear and careful. Nonetheless, he found that the applicant would either be able to have effective protection or could internally relocate. And that essentially is the first criticism that was made of the judgment: the judge confuses issues of internal relocation or internal flight and the sufficiency of protection.
It is also said that the judge did not properly take into account Rule 339K. An instance of the importance of that Rule is given by reference to SA (Political Activist—Internal Relocation) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 30 (IAC). It is said finally that the judge did not properly consider the two cases that were material, namely the case of SI...
To continue reading
Request your trial