Case summaries

This case concerned the risk that Christian converts face in Iran. The applicants, from Iran, were granted a residence permit and refugee status because their Christian belief came to the Iranian authorities' attention.

This case concerned reliance upon demeanour in refusing a refugee application. Then Court found that an asylum decision maker must be careful not to misplace reliance upon demeanour and risk construing as deliberate lack of candour from a demeanour which may be the result of nervousness, of the stress of the occasion and even of the embarrassment of being an asylum seeker.

Refugee status was granted to an Algerian woman who was at risk of forced marriage due to membership of a particular social group.

To not give the applicant some additional time to submit documents that the authorities are already aware of which may be relevant for the asylum application is a violation of Art 4.1 of the Qualification Directive.

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) returned the case to the Administrative Court for reconsideration based on the applicants' change of circumstance (conversion to Christianity in Finland) which only became apparent during the appeal before the SAC.

A claim based on past persecution was rejected on the basis that it lacked credibility. A challenge to the decision of the Tribunal was successful on the basis that the decision did not contain any reasoned assessment of the prospective risk of future persecution if returned to Sudan. The High Court in its judgment cautioned against the use of case law as a source of country of origin information.

The Administrative Court did not consider credible the claim that the applicant’s conversion to Christianity had come to the attention of the Afghan authorities. The Court held that even if this information had reached the authorities, the applicant would not be at risk on return.

The High Court refused leave to apply for judicial review of a deportation order on the grounds that the decision of the Minister for Justice was reasonable.

Applying Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive, the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) held that the mere finding that persecution has ceased in the country of origin, without showing that there are no good reasons to consider that such persecution will not be repeated, is insufficient to reject an application for asylum.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal must make a best interest of the child determination in considering an asylum appeal made by an unaccompanied minor. Further, that although the Secretary of State has a duty to trace the applicant’s family under the Reception Conditions Directive, this duty exists independently of the obligation to appropriately consider an asylum claim. Therefore the Secretary of State’s failure to act on the basis of the duty is not a ground on which an asylum appeal could be allowed.