Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2004-02-24, [2003] UKIAT 202 (HH (Risk, Failed asylum seekers))
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Dr HH Storey, Mr M. W Rapinet |
| Status | Reported |
| Date | 24 February 2004 |
| Published date | 08 March 2005 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Hearing Date | 09 December 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Risk, Failed asylum seekers |
| Appeal Number | [2003] UKIAT 202 |
ar HH (Risk-Failed Asylum Seekers) Libya CG [2003] UKIAT00202
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
H Date of Hearing: 9 December 2003
Date Determination notified
24 February 2004
Before:
Dr H H Storey (Chairman)
Mr M W Rapinet
APPELLANT
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
RESPONDENT
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, a national of Libya, appeals with leave of the Tribunal against a decision to remove him having refused to grant asylum. Miss R. Doughney of Counsel instructed by Halliday Reeves solicitors represented the appellant. Ms R. Giltrow appeared for the respondent.
2. In granting leave the Acting Vice President limited the issue to whether return of the claimant to Libya would give rise to a violation of Article 3. He saw no basis in the challenges made against the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings. Nor do we. The sole issue concerned whether failed asylum seekers per se are at risk on return to Libya.
3. The Adjudicator in this case had before him the Tribunal decision in Hassan [2002] UKIAT 00062. In Hassan the Tribunal referred to advice from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office that anyone returned to Libya after an absence in excess of six months is subject to interrogation b the security authorities. Such people are routinely imprisoned by administrative order for “having shown disloyalty to the state”. That case was decided in February 2002.
4. In deciding not to follow Hassan, the Adjudicator noted that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office had issued a new report in October 2002 which considered that failed asylum seekers were no longer at risk of a violation of Article 3.
5. The grounds of appeal contended that in view of the contents of the US State Department Report for 2003, the Adjudicator should have found that there remained a real risk of serious harm. That report said that security personnel routinely torture prisoners during interrogation. Since the Adjudicator accepted that an interrogation would take place, the appellant would be likely to face ill-treatment.
6. In amplifying the grounds of appeal Miss Doughney highlighted the fact that the appellant had been in the UK for five years. Both the US State Department Report for 2003 and the recent CIPU Bulletin demonstrate that there was still a real risk of interrogation and consequent ill-treatment.
7. Miss Giltrow made reference to a Dutch government report of November 2002 and maintained that the burden of the latest objective evidence was that only...
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
H Date of Hearing: 9 December 2003
Date Determination notified
24 February 2004
Before:
Dr H H Storey (Chairman)
Mr M W Rapinet
APPELLANT
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
RESPONDENT
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, a national of Libya, appeals with leave of the Tribunal against a decision to remove him having refused to grant asylum. Miss R. Doughney of Counsel instructed by Halliday Reeves solicitors represented the appellant. Ms R. Giltrow appeared for the respondent.
2. In granting leave the Acting Vice President limited the issue to whether return of the claimant to Libya would give rise to a violation of Article 3. He saw no basis in the challenges made against the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings. Nor do we. The sole issue concerned whether failed asylum seekers per se are at risk on return to Libya.
3. The Adjudicator in this case had before him the Tribunal decision in Hassan [2002] UKIAT 00062. In Hassan the Tribunal referred to advice from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office that anyone returned to Libya after an absence in excess of six months is subject to interrogation b the security authorities. Such people are routinely imprisoned by administrative order for “having shown disloyalty to the state”. That case was decided in February 2002.
4. In deciding not to follow Hassan, the Adjudicator noted that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office had issued a new report in October 2002 which considered that failed asylum seekers were no longer at risk of a violation of Article 3.
5. The grounds of appeal contended that in view of the contents of the US State Department Report for 2003, the Adjudicator should have found that there remained a real risk of serious harm. That report said that security personnel routinely torture prisoners during interrogation. Since the Adjudicator accepted that an interrogation would take place, the appellant would be likely to face ill-treatment.
6. In amplifying the grounds of appeal Miss Doughney highlighted the fact that the appellant had been in the UK for five years. Both the US State Department Report for 2003 and the recent CIPU Bulletin demonstrate that there was still a real risk of interrogation and consequent ill-treatment.
7. Miss Giltrow made reference to a Dutch government report of November 2002 and maintained that the burden of the latest objective evidence was that only...
To continue reading
Request your trial