C4/2005/0243 
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWCA Civ 448
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 

Thursday, 7th April 2005
 
B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE KEENE 
 
- - - - - - -
 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ADELZADEH 
Applicant/Appellant
-v-
 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
Respondent/Respondent 
- - - - - - -
 
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
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)
- - - - - - -
 
MR M ADELZADEH & MS BRUCE appeared IN PERSON
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
 - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE KEENE:  Mr Adelzadeh seeks permission today to appeal from a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dated 16th November 2004.  By that decision, the Tribunal, the IAT, dismissed his appeal from an adjudicator who had rejected his asylum and human rights appeal.
2.	The appeal to the IAT had been brought only on the ground that the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be infringed by requiring him to return to Iran, the country of which he is a citizen.  The adjudicator's decision had been promulgated on 4th December 2003, with the consequence that an appeal to the IAT could only be brought on a point of law, as indeed is the case with any appeal to this court.  That is something that I have explained to the applicant this morning.
3.	Because of the limited nature of the issues, I can deal with the essential facts quite shortly in this judgment.  Mr Adelzadeh arrived in the United Kingdom on 27th October 2000 and claimed asylum a few days later.  The Home Secretary refused his claim.  On the appeal to the adjudicator, the adjudicator found a lack of credibility in Mr Adelzadeh's evidence about the basis for his asylum claim and for any claim under Article 3 of the European Convention.  She consequently found that he had no well-founded fear of persecution if he was returned to Iran.  The Article 8 claim was based on the fact that, after arriving in this country, Mr Adelzadeh began a relationship with Ms Bruce, who, by the time of the hearing before the adjudicator, was pregnant by the applicant.  There was no doubt as to the fact that Ms Bruce had known of the applicant's immigration status a few months after they met.  She gave evidence to that effect before the adjudicator, and she also confirmed that she was learning to speak Iranian, but said that she could not live in Iran because she could not adapt to the religious lifestyle expected of a woman there.
4.	The adjudicator found that there was a family life in existence, but that Ms Bruce could accompany the applicant to Iran, as could any child born to them.  She concluded that there would not be an interference, therefore, with the applicant's Article 8 rights.  She also appears to have found that if there was any interference, it would be proportionate.  She also rejected a claim about the applicant's mental health.
5.	The IAT, at its hearing, had before it a statement from Ms Bruce in which she said that she was employed in the United Kingdom by Electronic Data Systems, EDS, which did work for Government departments.  If she went to Iran she said she would be sentenced to death if it emerged that she worked for the British Government.  The IAT rejected that argument.  It did not accept that she would face ill treatment in Iran for such a reason.  It noted that she had made it clear that she did not wish to live in Iran, but it found that the applicant could apply at the British Embassy in Iran to return to this country.  No evidence, said the Tribunal, suggested that that process would take excessively long.  Consequently, his Article 8 rights would not be infringed by his removal to Iran.
6.	In his grounds of appeal to this court, Mr Adelzadeh seeks to raise matters which generally are relevant only to his asylum claim or his Article 3 claim.  His other grounds, apart from those, relate to his or to Ms Bruce's medical problems.  None of that formed part of the grounds of appeal to the IAT from the adjudicator's decision.  Moreover, the adjudicator had observed that there are medical services available in Iran for those with psychiatric needs, and that most medications are available locally and at lower costs than in this country.
7.	This morning Mr Adelzadeh has addressed me with the assistance of Ms Bruce.  He has done so without an interpreter, agreeing that he was able to communicate, with Ms Bruce's help, adequately for present purposes.  He has again referred to Ms Bruce's medical problems, and says that he is making a family life in this country with his wife and child, that he wants to open a business here and to be able to work properly and to pay taxes in this country.  He also says that he cannot go back to Iran because of the risk to him.  As I have indicated, that last point is not one which provides any basis of challenge, because the adjudicator found that there was not a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant were to be returned to Iran.  As far as the family life in this country is concerned, that was a matter which was fully and, as far as I can see, properly considered by the adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.  
8.	I cannot discern any error of law in the IAT's decision about the Article 8 situation, and I cannot conclude that it would be a kindness to either the applicant or to Ms Bruce to prolong the agony by granting permission to appeal when in my judgment there is no foundation for a successful appeal against the IAT's decision.  This is a case, like a number which come before this court, which causes a degree of personal hardship to the individuals concerned.  It is in that sense a sad situation.  But I am bound to apply the law and I cannot see any legal defect in the decision in the Tribunal below, nor any arguable case that there is such a defect.  For those reasons, this application for permission to appeal must be dismissed.  
Order:  Application for permission to appeal is dismissed.