WD (Lebanon – Palestinian – ANO – risk)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Senior Immigration Judge Allen |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKAIT 47 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
| Date | 07 March 2008 |
[2008] UKAIT 47
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Senior Immigration Judge Allen
Senior Immigration Judge Eshun
Mrs G Greenwood
For the Appellant: Mr D Blum, Counsel, instructed by Knights Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr G Saunders, Home Office Presenting Officer
WD (Lebanon — Palestinian — ANO — risk) Lebanon CG
The Abu Nidal Organisation (“ANO”) exists now as no more than separate cells and individuals operating on their own, and hence is very unlikely to pose a real threat to an individual who has in the past been the object of its hostility.
The appellant is a Palestinian, a former resident in Lebanon. He appealed to an Adjudicator against the Secretary of State's decision of 11 August 2004 to remove him as an illegal entrant from the United Kingdom. In a determination promulgated on 16 December 2004 the Adjudicator dismissed his appeal. The appellant subsequently sought permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. A Vice President refused permission on 22 February 2005. The appellant thereafter sought statutory review, and on 7 April 2005 Silber J reversed the decision of the Tribunal refusing leave. The appeal then came before a panel of the AIT on 9 May 2006 as a reconsideration of the Adjudicator's decision. The Tribunal did not find there to be a material error of law in the Adjudicator's decision and accordingly ordered that his decision dismissing the appeal was to stand. The appellant thereafter sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. This was refused by a Senior Immigration Judge on 22 June 2006, but on application to the Court of Appeal permission was granted by Neuberger LJ on 16 August 2006. Subsequently by consent, in an order made by Laws LJ on 26 September 2006, the order of the Tribunal of 10 May 2006 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a consideration of whether the determination of the Adjudicator disclosed an error of law.
The matter came before a panel of the Tribunal on 24 November 2006 and it was determined that the Adjudicator's decision was materially flawed and that there must be a full reconsideration in the case. It stated:
-
“1. (repeats the above paragraph 1)
-
2. The appeal came before us on 24 November 2006. Mr P Richardson, instructed by Knight Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr C Hearsum appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State.
-
3. We heard submissions from Mr Richardson and Mr Hearsum. It was agreed that all the issues that were argued as errors in the Adjudicator's determination were before us for consideration. In addition Mr Richardson argued, and Mr Hearsum did not disagree, that it was open to him to argue the issue of whether Fatah could be regarded as an agent of protection. Mr Richardson argued that a basis for this could be found in the broad challenge to the findings on risk on return in the original grounds, in that arguably, the finding on sufficiency of protection was related to that issue. Mr Hearsum agreed that there was a material error of law in that regard as well as with regard to the other matters contended for in the original grounds.
-
4. The grounds of appeal against the Adjudicator's determination contend firstly that the credibility findings are flawed. In this regard it is said that paragraph 11 of the Adjudicator's determination provided no reasoning for the conclusion that the appellant was not a courier for Fatah as he suggested. The point is made that there was an error in the refusal letter upon which the Adjudicator relied, at paragraph 11, wrongly stating the date of Abu Nidal's death as being August 2003 when in fact it was August 2002. In addition, the Adjudicator had not addressed his mind to the answers given by the appellant in his statement of 18 August 2004 at paragraphs 23 to 37 to the respondent's challenges to his credibility in the refusal letter.
-
5. The next ground concerns the failure by the Adjudicator to take account of the evidence of the appellant's wife, Mrs HW. Thirdly it is argued that the findings on risk on return at paragraph 11 do not deal with the essential issues in the case. It is argued that the objective evidence referred to by the Adjudicator was contradictory and it was unclear what objective evidence he was referring to in the relevant part of his determination and it was therefore impossible properly to analyse his approach to the appellant's case in the light of the objective evidence. The fourth ground comprises in effect a challenge to the IAT in KK [2004] UKIAT 00293. As is noted, the Adjudicator did not rely on this decision but decided the appeal in line with the guidance given in that decision. Reference is made to the fact that permission had been sought to appeal KK to the Court of Appeal and it was argued that the conclusion of the Adjudicator in stating that the systematic discrimination suffered by Palestinians in Lebanon did not cross the Article 3 or persecutory threshold was an error of law.
-
6. We agree that all of these matters identify errors of law in the Adjudicator's determination. The grounds are terse and coherent, and we see no particular benefit in paraphrasing them as they make the points contained within them perfectly clearly. The only comment we might make with regard to ground 4 is that subsequently the Court of Appeal refused to grant permission to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2008-05-21, [2008] UKAIT 47 (WD (Lebanon, Palestinian, risk))
...New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: ar-SA } a:link { color: #0000ff } WD (Lebanon – Palestinian – ANO – risk) Lebanon CG [2008] UKAIT 00047 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 6 & 7 March 2008 Before Senior Immigration Judge Allen Senior......