|
Summary in Primary Language:
|
 read more
|
|
Additional Legal Information:
|
The applicant claimed asylum in the UK in 2001 but returned to Lebanon under the assisted voluntary return scheme. In...The applicant claimed asylum in the UK in 2001 but returned to Lebanon under the assisted voluntary return scheme. In 2007 he returned to the UK and again claimed asylum. His appeal against the SSHD’s refusal of his claim for asylum was dismissed by an Immigration Judge, against which reconsideration was refused. In 2008, he lodged fresh evidence, which was eventually accepted by the SSHD as a fresh claim for asylum. The case comes before the Upper Tribunal as an appeal against the immigration decision issued in respect of that claim.
Whereas the Immigration Judge had treated Article 1D Refugee Convention as an exclusion provision, the Tribunal proceeds to consider whether this same article may actually require the applicant to be treated as entitled to the benefits of the CSR.
Through reference to the Court of Justice of the EU decision in Bolbol v BAH Case C-31/09 and Advocate General Sharpstone’s opinion in the same case, the Tribunal finds that the Court of Appeal’s decision on Article 1D in El-Ali is clearly overruled. It finds that the applicant is a person who meets the Attorney General’s test of ‘involuntary displacement’ in paragraph 90 of her opinion, such that he is positively entitled to the benefits of the Refugee Convention.
The Tribunal then proceeds to re-make the decision and allow the applicant’s appeal on Refugee Convention grounds, although it is at pains to clarify ‘[t]hat is not to say precisely that the appellant is a refugee: [merely that] he is entitled to the benefits of the Refugee Convention, including those prohibiting his removal’ (paragraph 29). read more
|