Karimov v Secretary of State for the Home Department

J U D G M E N T

Thursday, 28th July 2005

1. LORD JUSTICE NEUBERGER: This is an application by Mr Natig Karimov who comes from Azerbaijan where he was born in 1966. He came to this country in January 2004 and claimed asylum the day after he arrived. In March 2004 the Secretary of State made a finding that he could not remain in the United Kingdom. His decision was upheld by an adjudicator on 17th June 2004. Although Mr Karimov was given permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (the "IAT"), the IAT dismissed his appeal in February 2005. He now seeks to appeal that decision to this court.

2. Mr Karimov is very keen to stay in this country. He feels that he could offer this country a lot. He does not want to go back to Azerbaijan. He considers that he has been unfairly treated by the Home Office and by the adjudicator, who, he believes, misled him into thinking they were trying to help him when they were doing the opposite. He also feels that he has very unfairly been branded a liar and that evidence which should have been accepted, which showed he was a member of the Musavat party and had been brutally treated by the Azerbaijani police, was unreasonably rejected by the adjudicator and by the IAT.

3. In human terms nobody could fail to have sympathy for Mr Karimov for what he wants to do, namely to stay in this country, why he wants to do it, and how he feels about the way he has been treated. However, I have to decide whether there are grounds which would give him any real prospect of successfully appealing the decision of the IAT.

4. Having said that I understand Mr Karimov's feelings, I am not convinced he has been misled by the Home Office or by the adjudicator. He says he was misled into thinking they were trying to help him whereas they were out to do him down in a number of documents and meetings. The only document he has produced (but I am not saying that there are no other similar documents) in this connection is a letter of 20th July 2005 from the Home Office. As a letter it is perfectly courteous and informative, but it contains what Mr Karimov regards as negative news. It certainly cannot, to my mind, fairly be said to mislead in any way.

5. Accordingly, while I understand Mr Karimov's feelings, which I am sure are genuinely felt, there is nothing to suggest that he has been misled in the sense of having been provided with objectively misleading material or correspondence by the Home Office or the adjudicator. After his experiences in Azerbaijan he may have misunderstood courteous communications from officials as carrying sympathy and support whereas in practice they are no more than what they appear to be on their face, namely courteous communications, conveying genuine information.

6. Apart from the point that he had been unfairly misled, which I have already dealt with, there are a number of other points taken in his notice of appeal and in his oral argument before me.

7. In presenting his oral argument, and in dealing with questions from me, Mr Karimov, and indeed I, have been very greatly assisted by Mrs Irina Bullett who has, I believe, clearly and competently translated my observations to Mr Karimov, and when he has chosen not to address me directly, has translated what he has to say to me. I would personally like to thank her very much and to record that she has been of great assistance.

8. I can deal, I am afraid, quite shortly with the outstanding points. First, Mr Karimov says that the adjudicator and the IAT were wrong in not believing him. As I explained to him, only if the adjudicator or the IAT have made findings of fact which are so unreasonable that no tribunal could make them, can an appeal court interfere. I am bound to say that none of the findings in this case get near falling into that category.

9. Secondly, the IAT was concerned about the fact that the adjudicator may not have taken into account the effect of two documents, certainly that is why they gave permission to appeal to the IAT. In my view the way in which the IAT dealt with those documents (see paragraphs 15 to 18 and 21 to 25 of their decision) appears to me to be entirely defensible. I have no doubt, as I have already mentioned, that Mr Karimov genuinely believes that it was unreasonable to deal with those documents in that way, but the question for me is simply whether the IAT was entitled to deal with them in that way. I am afraid, for Mr Karimov's sake, it was.

10. In my judgment the other points raised in his skeleton argument and oral submissions, with one exception, really raise other issues of fact which involve going into territory which, to my mind, cannot be the subject matter of an appeal to this court.

11. The one remaining point which I should specifically deal with is that he does not speak English perfectly and that he had no legal representation. The IAT dealt with the question of Mr Karimov's understanding at the beginning of paragraph 3 of its decision: he had the benefit of an interpreter. The IAT explained why, in that paragraph, that it was "entirely satisfied that the appellant was not disadvantaged in any way." I see no reason for going behind that finding.

12. So far as the absence of legal representation is concerned, this court must look carefully as to whether or not there was any unfairness as a result of the absence of legal representation. However, in the end, this case turned on facts and unfortunately for Mr Karimov the facts found by the adjudicator and by the IAT were adverse to him.

13. Accordingly, while, as I hope I have indicated, for what it is worth in this judgment, I am very sorry for Mr Karimov and I understand his aspirations, I must refuse this application.

ORDER: application refused.