![]() |
[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 >> YI (Previous claims, Fingerprint match, EURODAC) Eritrea [2007] UKAIT 00054 (04 June 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2007/00054.html Cite as: [2007] UKAIT 00054, [2007] UKAIT 54 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
YI (Previous claims – Fingerprint match – EURODAC) Eritrea
[2007] UKAIT 00054
Date of hearing: 22 May 2007
Date Determination notified: 04 June 2006
YI |
APPELLANT |
and |
|
Secretary of State for the Home Department | RESPONDENT |
For the Appellant: Mr M Sowerby, instructed by Messrs YVA, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Ouseley, Presenting Officer
An Immigration Judge needs to be satisfied on the specific evidence in each case, including EURODAC evidence if available, whether the Appellant has made a previous claim. The evidence could comprise not just fingerprints but other data from the alleged previous application, for example photographs, age, name and claim details. General evidence might also be properly admitted about the reliability of the EURODAC system and how it operates. An Immigration Judge will also, as a matter of fairness, need to be satisfied that the Appellant has had the facility to access information about the assertion against him that would enable him, if he so wishes, to make a meaningful forensic rebuttal beyond mere denial. An Appellant may not want to use such a facility if the match is genuine and further evidence would only make matters worse for him. It is therefore the availability of the facility rather than the take-up that is needed in a fair system.
"14. The primary credibility issue raised by the Presenting Officer was the Home Office allegation that the Appellant had claimed asylum in Italy in June 2005, which undermines the Appellant's claim to have been undertaking his military service inEritrea
until his departure in July 2006. This issue was discussed in some detail at the case management review hearing on 23 October 2006 before Immigration Judge Flynn. As a result of concerns raised by Counsel for the Appellant at that hearing, directions were issued by the Tribunal requiring the Respondent to provide evidence of all information sent to Italy to verify the Appellant's identity and show he claimed asylum there. The Home Office responded by providing an e-mail from Andy Ritchie, the Home Office caseworker who dealt with the Appellant's asylum application on behalf of the Secretary of State.
15. The sum of the information presented to me on this issue is as follows.
(1) An e-mail dated 10 August 2006 sent to "ASULIVEURODACResults…." Headed "EURODACSearch Result". This e-mail refers to the Appellant by name and various identifying references and codes (including his nationality and date of birth) and the fact that he was fingerprinted on 10 August 2006. Below this there is another heading - "Identification List" with a "case ID" No. and Sex – M", "Place of Apprehension – Pozzallo" and "Date of Apprehension – 2.6.05".
(2) A Home Office form with the same IFB reference number as on the above e-mail with the result "no matching records". Also on the form are the various identifying references for the Appellant and his photograph.
(3) A memorandum from Andy Ritchie dated 1.11.06 stating as follows.
"The fingerprint match from Italy in 2005 was a EURODAC trace that ASU Liverpool received on 10 August 2006 when the applicant's fingerprints were scanned in after a previously unsuccessful attempt on 27 July 2006. When an applicant's fingerprints are scanned into EURODAC, a result is e-mailed back to the ASU concerned - in this case there was a hit on the applicant's fingerprints that matches details as being previously fingerprinted in Pozzallo, Italy on 2 June 2005 (minute on file from ASU Liverpool dated 10.8.06 refers and copy e-mail..)
The memorandum then confirms that the photograph attached to the printout was taken by the ASU in Liverpool.
16. When a serious allegation of deception is made against an Appellant, this must be adequately supported by evidence. In a case of this nature, I would expect to see copies of matching data in the form of the fingerprints taken in Liverpool and Italy. I would also expect to have some further details of the person fingerprinted in Italy such as their name, nationality and/or photograph. Unfortunately none of this information has been supplied by the Respondent. The only evidence of the match comes in the form of the e-mail with the search results (quoted above). Even this evidence is undermined by the admission that a previous attempt at a match was unsuccessful (as appears to be reflected in the form stating "no matching records").
17. I have no concerns whatsoever as to the good faith of the Home Office in seeking to verify whether this Appellant had made a previous asylum claim in Europe, and I accept that information was fed into the computer which yielded a match with a person fingerprinted in Italy. Unfortunately, however, the Respondent has failed to back this up with adequate supporting evidence to satisfy me that the search result is accurate. I do not consider the evidence provided to adequately support the conclusion that this Appellant is the same person as the person fingerprinted in Italy in June 2005.
"Respondent to provide evidence of all information sent to Italy to verify the Appellant's identity and show he claimed asylum there.
Respondent to provide objective evidence referred to in paragraph 15 of RFR letter. All documents to be served on the Appellant and the AIT five days prior to the next hearing."
Signed Dated 24 May 2007
Senior Immigration Judge Batiste