Case No: C5/2007/0628
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Civ 633
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL 
[AIT No: HX/59270/2003]

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday, 14th June 2007

Before:

LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	ZH (LEBANON)	
Appellant	
	- and -		
	
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT	

Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The appellant appeared in person.

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Lord Justice Tuckey:
1.	This is a renewed application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal by ZH from a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, who on a reconsideration confirmed an adjudicator’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the Secretary of State’s decision refusing his claim for asylum and humanitarian relief.  
2.	The applicant is a Palestinian habitual resident of Lebanon now aged 32.  He arrived in the United Kingdom in June 2000 and claimed asylum on the ground that as a member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine he was at risk of violence from members of the more militant Fatah group in the refugee camps in which he had been living in Lebanon.  He had left the Beddawi camp and come to England via Syria and Algeria because he feared for his life.  
3.	The applicant’s credibility was not in issue.  The adjudicator dismissed his appeal because she did not consider he was at risk if returned to Lebanon wherever he went, but in paragraph 17 of her decision she said that in any event he would be safe if he relocated to the Ein-al-Hilweh camp, which was under the effective control of anti-Arafat factions.  
4.	The AIT were not happy with the first part of the adjudicator’s decision but upheld her conclusion on the basis of internal relocation.  Before the AIT the applicant’s counsel is recorded as having accepted that the Ein-al-Hilweh camp would be safe but had argued that it would be unreasonable for the applicant to have to travel to that camp from Beirut because he would have to pass through hostile territory and through numerous checkpoints.  Based on the objective evidence, the adjudicator had found that such travel was possible and that the applicant would be able to make his way to the other camp in the same way as he had been able to travel to Syria.  The AIT concluded that it was reasonably open to the adjudicator to reach this conclusion, which was of course a finding of fact.  
5.	The grounds of appeal were settled by the solicitor and/or counsel who had appeared for the applicant both before the adjudicator and the AIT.  They complained that the AIT’s decision was perverse and that the Tribunal had misunderstood the concession which counsel had made and failed to give anxious scrutiny to the question of whether internal flight was a reasonable option.  
6.	I do not think that the AIT’s decision could in anyway be characterised as perverse.  They obviously did consider the internal flight option and thought it was reasonable for the applicant to travel from Beirut to this other camp, given that he had successfully made his way from the Beddawi camp to Syria without apparent difficulty.  But the focus of the application before me today which has been made by the applicant in person (because legal aid was withdrawn when the AIT refused permission to appeal to this court) is that in fact the Ein-al-Hilweh camp is not safe for him.  It was not safe for him at the time the Tribunal reached its decision and it certainly is not safe for him now.  He also says that the AIT misunderstood counsel’s concession.  It had only been conceded that the camp might offer some protection but counsel had argued that this protection would not be sufficient for this appellant.
7.	Nevertheless, it was in my judgment still open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusion it did.  The adjudicator’s decision was not based on any concession by counsel.  Her decision was based on the objective country evidence which she had about conditions in the various refugee camps in the Lebanon.  As the expert tribunal, that is a view to which this court must defer.  Unless this court can detect any error of law in the adjudicator’s approach or the AIT’s assessment of the conclusion she reached there is no scope for appeal to this court.  
8.	This case does not therefore raise any error of law as Laws LJ said when he refusing permission on paper.  So this is not a case for granting permission to appeal.  I have, however, told the applicant this morning that if he has evidence that conditions in this camp have changed from the time the adjudicator and the AIT made their decisions to the point where it can now be shown that it would be unsafe to return him to relocate to that camp, then that is a matter which could form the basis for a fresh claim for asylum.  He should perhaps therefore return to his original solicitor or to some body who advises those in his position to see if there is any basis for making such a claim.  
9.	But so far as this court is concerned there are no arguable grounds for appeal and I must therefore refuse permission.

Order: Application refused.