Stella Adellah Birungi v Secretary of state for the home department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1994 |
| Date | 14 December 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Neill, Beldam, Saville LJJ
M Serugo-Lugo for the applicant
N Garnham for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgments:
Sivakumaran and ors v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentELR [1988] AC 958: [1988] Imm AR 147.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Ahmed Khan [1982] Imm AR 134.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mohd Amin [1992] Imm AR 367.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Stella Birungi (unreported, QBD, 11 April 1994).
Political asylum — refusal by Secretary of State — dismissal of appeal by special adjudicator — applicant not found to be credible — the status and relevance of the guidance in the UNHCR Handbook. Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status, paras. 199, 203, 204.
Renewed application for judicial review of refusal by Tribunal to grant leave to appeal from special adjudicator's dismissal of political asylum appeal, the application having been refused by Bell J.
The applicant was a citizen of Uganda. The special adjudicator had not found her a credible witness.
Before the court counsel submitted that the adjudicator had failed to set out the issues in the case, had confusedly used the word ‘hearing’ for two different events, had taken adverse to the applicant a point not raised at the hearing and had not given due attention to the guidance in the UNHCR Handbook on giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant.
Held
1. The adjudicator had set out all that was necessary as to the issues and his reasons for coming to his conclusions.
2. The use of the word ‘hearing’ in context could not justify judicial review.
3. The point not raised at the hearing could have then been clarified by the applicant: in any event the adjudicator had formed his assessment of the applicant before considering that issue.
4. The Handbook did not contain rules of English law. Its contents could only serve as guidelines for adjudicators. The adjudicator's task was to evaluate the evidence put to him and decide on the evidence, on the findings he makes, whether the refusal of asylum was or was not justified. In any event paragraph 203 on which counsel relied had to be read in conjunction with paragraph 204, where satisfaction as to an applicant's general credibility was a prerequisite to giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Neill LJ: This is a renewed application by Miss Stella Adellah Birungi for leave to apply for judicial review in relation to certain decisions and determinations relating to her application for asylum. In chronological order the decisions of which judicial review is sought are (1) the original refusal letter from the Home Office dated 7 September 1993; (2) the determination of the special adjudicator dated 9 March 1994; and (3) the determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dated 22 March 1994. The application is renewed to this court following the dismissal of the application for leave by Bell J on 11 April 1994.
The relevant facts are conveniently set out in the skeleton argument prepared on behalf of the applicant by Mr Serugo-Lugo. Miss Birungi was born in Uganda in August 1969. She came to this country in the spring of 1993 having come here via Nairobi in Kenya. Immediately she arrived she claimed asylum. Her claim after interview was considered by the Home Office. In due course, she was notified that her application for asylum was refused. The letter of refusal dated 7 September 1993 was in these terms:
‘You have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds that you have a well-founded fear of persecution in Uganda for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
The Secretary of State considered that your application contained insufficient evidence to support a claim of persecution. He noted that neither you nor your family had any involvement in political matters and that your only political connection was through your boyfriend, but you were unable to name the party he supported. You were able to give no justification...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morteza Fafschi For Judicial Review Of A Determination Of An Adjudicator And A Determination Of The Immigration Appeal Tribunal
...given to the UNCHR Handbook, he referred to T v Immigration Officer [1996] AC 742, Birungi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] Imm AR 331, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Akdogan [1995] Imm AR 176, and The Queen (on the application of Dirisu) v Immigr......
-
Hardeep Singh Sangha v Secretary of state for the home department
...GWD 271593. Alagon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] SLT 381. Birungi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] Imm AR 331. Political asylum refused appeal to special adjudicator withdrawn on representative's advice whether judicial review of refusal appropriate ......