![]() |
[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 >> M v Secretary of State for the Home Department (DR Congo) [2003] UKIAT 00054 (28 August 2003) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2003/00054.html Cite as: [2003] UKIAT 00054, [2003] UKIAT 54 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
IN THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Decision Number: [2003] UKIAT 00054 M (DRCongo
)
Heard: 24.07.03
Signed: 13.12.03
Sent out: 28.08.03
Before:
John Freeman (chairman)
and
Mr A Smith
Between:
and:
Mr NS Ahluwalia (counsel instructed by Glazer Delmar) for the appellant
Miss K Evans for the respondent
This is an appeal from a decision of an adjudicator (Mr J Bailey), sitting at Hatton Cross on 11 October 2002, dismissing an asylum and human rights appeal by a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo [DRC]. Leave was given on the basis that the adjudicator might not have
a) dealt with part of the appellant's case; and
b) taken a proper view of the psychological evidence about him.
As to the psychologist [sic] report, the conclusions of that report are based on self reporting by the Appellant. As I found the Appellant's story to be a falsehood I can put little weight upon the report which has in my view been induced by manufactured statements by the Appellant to the psychologist.
On this occasion [the appellant] made only three errors. This performance is consistent with that which would be predicted of a person of at least low average cognitive ability (IQ) and is not indicative of any significant level of mental impairment.
While it would have been better to explain what mistakes the appellant had made, that does provide some sort of score on a recognized test, and relate it to the normal range.
In interview [the appellant] seemed to be trying his best to answer my questions accurately and he was very cooperative. He appeared to have no difficulty in following the translation, which was in his native Lingala.
Appeal allowed
Direction for resumed hearing ("remitted", to Mr Bailey)
John Freeman (chairman)