[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Hayat v Secretary Of State For Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1348 (14 August 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1348.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1348

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 14th August 2001

Tuesday, 14th August 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: There is no appearance in this case. Mr Hayat has sent in a medical certificate issued by a general practitioner in Doncaster saying that he should refrain from work for four weeks from 9th August because of anxiety and depression. I do not propose to grant an adjournment of this application on the basis of this medical certificate. The reason will become apparent when I have indicated what my view is of the substantive application.
2. The application is for permission to appeal against the refusal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of permission to appeal against the adverse decision of an adjudicator. The adjudicator had dismissed Mr Hayat's claim for asylum, it having been previously refused by the Home Office.
3. The applicant entered the United Kingdom as a visitor on a six-month visa. While he was here, but not on arrival, he applied for asylum, asserting that he had a well-founded fear of persecution by members of a rival faction of his political party, the Altaf Husain. These people, he said, had in 1997 had him arrested on false charges. The police, he said, had then tortured him. But when he was released his own faction of the party had threatened him with violence when he tried to distance himself from them.
4. This, at least, was the account given in an unsigned statement tendered on his behalf. When he was asked to attend at Croydon for an interview in support of the asylum application which he had made, he failed to attend. He had advisers on the record by then, Messrs Ali & Co, and they wrote to ask for the interview to take place in the north of England because of difficulties of travel, the applicant having settled, it appears, in Doncaster. A change of venue was refused and in his absence, having considered his written account, the Home Office understandably declined to grant him asylum. Later, Ali & Co wrote to say that it was not because of distance but because he was ill that the applicant had not attended the asylum interview, but that he was not registered with a general practitioner and so was unable to provide a medical certificate.
5. Ali & Co therefore appealed to the immigration adjudicator by letter. They expressly waived Mr Hayat's right to attend the hearing. In his absence on 6th February 2001 the adjudicator rejected Mr Hayat's claim. In a short judgment, after setting out an account of the law which is unimpeachable and a summary of the evidence, the adjudicator simply expressed his disbelief in every factual element of the applicant's account. He also concluded, but again without assigning specific reasons, that the documents submitted in support, namely two first information reports and two arrest warrants, were not genuine. These conclusions, the adjudicator held, were supported by the belated nature of the application, made only after the applicant had entered the country as a visitor.
6. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal held that it was not a proper case for the grant of permission to appeal. The question for me is whether there is any ground on which the Tribunal can be said to have erred in reaching that conclusion.
7. While the sheer disbelief expressed by the adjudicator appears somewhat strong in the absence of any contradictory or inconsistent testimony, whether written or oral, he was, it seems to me, fully entitled to conclude that even the modest standard of proof of risk (which he correctly directed himself was all that was necessary) had not been met by this applicant, who had entered as a visitor, who had not then applied promptly for asylum, who had not only failed to attend the asylum interview but had chosen to stay away from the hearing before the adjudicator himself and had relied instead on an unsigned and undated statement, upon which in the nature of things he could not be cross-examined, and on documents of a kind which are notoriously capable of being forged to order.
8. It would have been remarkable if such a claim to asylum had succeeded, and I agree with the Immigration Appeal Tribunal that there is no material error in the immigration adjudicator's decision refusing the appeal from the Home Office's decision. While it might well be said that the adjudicator had gone too far in the degree of disbelief he expressed, he was fully entitled to conclude that the proof of a well-founded fear of persecution for a political reason had not reached even the modest level which the law requires in order to secure asylum. In those circumstances it seems to me that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was incontestably right to refuse permission to appeal, and the appeal which Mr Hayat wants to bring against that decision appears to me to have no prospect whatever of success.
9. This brings me back to his application today for an adjournment. In the ordinary way the court will be indulgent towards people who through misfortune cannot attend, and will give them a reasonable opportunity to attend in the future. In the present case the non-specific nature of the ailment recorded in the medical certificate, when associated with the consistent history of Mr Hayat's non-attendance at every hearing offered to him, drives me to the conclusion that to grant an adjournment would not enable Mr Hayat to attend. It would only give him an opportunity to make a further application for a further adjournment.
10. Everything about this case is redolent of somebody who has abused the permission given to him to enter this country and is now setting about prolonging the time for which that abuse can continue. In those circumstances this does not seem to be a proper case in which to grant the adjournment which has implicitly been asked for by the submission of the medical certificate. For these reasons my refusal of permission today will be the end of the road.
Order: Application dismissed.