![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> AH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00062 (07 February 2002) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2002/00062.html Cite as: [2002] UKIAT 00062, [2002] UKIAT 62 |
[New search]
[Context]
[Printable version]
[Help]
AH v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00062
HX-23318-2001
Date of hearing: 18/12/2001
Date Determination notified: 07/02/2002
AH |
APPELLANT |
and |
|
Secretary of State for the Home Department | RESPONDENT |
"ENFORCED REMOVAL OF FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS
Summary
1. In Apri1 2000 Amnesty International made representations to us in the specific case of a failed Libyan asylum seeker where we had enforced his removal to Libya. It was said that this individual was arrested and imprisoned on return to Libya. A temporary hold was placed on further removals whilst we made further enquiries. Amnesty International Canada also produced a report last year in which they said that, in addition to being detained, several returned asylum seekers have been subjected to serious human rights violations, including torture.
2. On the basis of the information from Amnesty International, UNHCR urged caution in returning failed asylum seekers to Libya. They also point to an incident in March last year concerning several Libyan nationals, who were extradited from Jordan to Libya, at least 3 of whom were killed on arrival at Tripoli airport.
3. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advised that: any Libyans returning to that country after an absence of six months or more are subject to an interrogation by the Libyan security authorities. Failed asylum seekers are routinely imprisoned by administrative (as opposed to judicial) order for `having shown disloyalty to the state'.
4. In the light of this information we do not believe that we can at present safely enforce removals of failed asylum seekers to Libya. Any representation made under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act against the removal to Libya of a refused asylum applicant, and based on information currently available in the public domain is likely to succeed. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said that they do not expect a significant change in the human rights situation in Libya within the next twelve months.
New Policy
5. As a consequence of the above it has been decided that a limited exceptional leave policy for failed asylum seekers from Libya will be introduced as follows:
(a) refused Libyan asylum seekers to be granted 6 months ELR/E.
(b) senior case workers to submit, to the Minister, advice on individual cases involving applicants who have been convicted of a serious crime and those subject to a recommendation to deport by the courts.
(c) There will also be close, ongoing monitoring of the situation, to facilitate a review of this policy in twelve months or sooner if new information becomes available on the safety of return."
The appellant's solicitors had written to the Home Office on 15 June 2001 drawing attention to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Bulletin and stating:
"In the light of the information given by the FCO we would invite the Secretary of State to grant refugee status and indefinite leave to enter to our client as the information clearly demonstrates that our client will be considered to have a political opinion (`disloyalty to the State') regardless of any conclusion that the Secretary of State has reached in relation to the particular facts of his claim. He clearly will experience persecution as a result of that imputed political opinion."
That letter was also put before the adjudicator.
"The respondent is the source of that information, has not replied to the letter from the appellant's agents, has not appeared at the hearing, and has made no submission in writing. The conclusion is irresistible that the return of the appellant to Libya would breach, at least, the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention."
He accordingly allowed the appeal.
"Whether an adjudicator who allows on human rights grounds an appeal against removal has an obligation also to consider any asylum grounds argued against the same decision."
Sir Andrew Collins (President)