![]() |
[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 >> Ekinci v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1482 (15 November 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1482.html Cite as: [2005] EWCA Civ 1482 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ABDULMACIT EKINCI | Appellant/Appellant | |
-v- | ||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT | Respondent/Respondent |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Tuesday, 15th November 2005
"It may well be that the Adjudicator made assumptions which were somewhat based on speculation. Whether this was material to the outcome depends on the remainder of her reasons for her findings. For this reason, we will return to this point after we have considered the remainder of the challenges to the Adjudicator's reasoning."
"We now turn to assess whether the issue we have described at paragraph 24 above is material to the outcome, having considered all the other grounds and found that they have not been made out. We can be brief in this regard. It is only necessary for us to say that we are satisfied that, even leaving aside the Adjudicator's somewhat speculative assumptions (as described in paragraph 24 above), the remainder of the Adjudicator's reasons are adequate in law to fully support her adverse credibility assessment and her findings of fact."
Their conclusion, as expressed by the Senior Immigration Judge in the chair, Ms DK Gill, was that the original tribunal, that is the adjudicator, did not make a material error of law.
ORDER: application refused; public funding assessment for appellant.