Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-02-02, JR-2021-LON-001894
| Appeal Number | JR-2021-LON-001894 |
| Hearing Date | 14 November 2022 |
| Published date | 10 February 2023 |
| Date | 02 February 2023 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
|
JR-2021-LON-001894 |
||
|
|
In the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Judicial Review |
|
|
|
||
|
In the matter of an application for Judicial Review |
||
|
|
||
|
|
The King on the application of |
|
|
|
SSA (Ethiopia) |
|
|
|
|
Applicant |
|
|
versus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secretary of State for the Home Department |
|
|
|
|
Respondent |
|
|
||
|
ORDER |
||
|
|
|
|
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell
UPON hearing Priya Solanki of counsel, instructed by BHD Solicitors, for the applicant and William Irwin of counsel, instructed by GLD, for the respondent at a hearing on 14 November 2022
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
-
The Applicant’s claim for judicial review is granted on Grounds 1, 2 and 3 for the reasons set out in the judgment.
-
It is declared that the applicant was unlawfully discriminated against within the meaning of Article 14 ECHR to the extent identified in the judgment.
-
The Respondent’s decision dated 1 October 2021 is quashed.
-
The Respondent is to grant the Applicant Discretionary Leave within 28 days of this order, absent special circumstances.
-
The Applicant’s damages claim is to be transferred to County Court and to be stayed for three months on transfer to allow the parties to attempt to negotiate settlement.
-
The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s reasonable costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
-
There is to be a detailed assessment of the Applicant’s legally aided costs.
-
The Respondent is refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Signed: M.J.Blundell
Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell
Dated: 31 January 2023
The date on which this order was sent is given below
For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 2 February 2023
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Notification of appeal rights
A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.
A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).
If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) |
Case No: JR-2021-LON-001894
|
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
31 January 2023
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUNDELL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
SSA (ETHIOPIA)
Applicant
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Priya Solanki
(instructed by BHD Solicitors), for the applicant
William Irwin
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 14 November 2022
Additional written submissions on 22 November 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Order Regarding Anonymity
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the applicant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the applicant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the applicant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
Judge Blundell:
-
The applicant is an asylum-seeker and a confirmed victim of trafficking. She seeks an anonymity order. Having considered the Presidential Guidance on Anonymity Orders, I make an order under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, in the terms above.
Background
-
The applicant is an Ethiopian national who was born on 12 September 1975. She seeks judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse to grant her a period of discretionary leave to remain as a recognised victim of trafficking. In order to frame that challenge and the areas of contention between the applicant and the respondent, it is necessary to set out something of the chronology.
-
The applicant entered the United Kingdom on 17 January 2018. She had flown directly from Saudi Arabia, using her own passport. She had previously been granted entry clearance as a Domestic Worker, sponsored by her Saudi employers.
-
On 18 February 2018, the police removed the applicant from the home of her employers. She subsequently intimated that she wished to claim asylum and, on 20 March 2018, she underwent an asylum screening interview. She stated, amongst other things, that she was married to a man who remained in Ethiopia; that she had been exploited in Saudi Arabia; and that she had been involved in politics in Ethiopia, as a result of which she feared that she would be killed by the authorities were she to return.
-
The applicant made the first of two statements in support of her protection claim on 26 March 2018. She stated that she was one of six children from a middle-class family which owned a grocery shop. She had been educated to the age of 20. She had married in 2008. Her husband was a chauffeur and worked in Saudi Arabia. Her father had supported the Oromo Liberation Front (“OLF”), as had she. He had been arrested in 2012 and had been killed by the authorities. She had been sought by the police after her father’s death and she left Ethiopia for Saudi Arabia. An agency had found employment for her there.
-
All of the employees in the Saudi household were treated very badly and the applicant stated that she had no time off in the six years she worked there. Physical abuse was commonplace, from any member of the household, and could occur at any time of the day or night. She had come to the UK with her employer and had not intended to claim asylum. She had not contacted the police; that had been done by friends of her cousin, after she told her niece that she was being treated particularly badly. After the police had removed her from her employer’s house, she had decided not to press charges as she feared that her employer could take revenge against her or her family. Her husband had been forced to return to Ethiopia after suffering similar difficulties at the hands of his employer in Saudi Arabia.
-
The applicant stated that she had returned to Ethiopia in 2015 because her brother was unwell. She was arrested on the day of her arrival. She had been detained and interrogated, during which she had been significantly ill-treated. She was asked about the OLF. She had managed to escape and had returned to Saudi Arabia, where she started working for her old employer again. She feared returning to Ethiopia because of what had happened in 2015. She felt that she had no choice but to live ‘in slavery’ in Saudi Arabia because she would be killed in her own country.
-
The applicant was issued with a notice under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Her solicitors returned that notice on 27 March 2018. She continued to rely on the Refugee Convention and Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. At [2] and [5] of that document, the applicant also relied on the following arguments:
[2] The applicant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial