MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This is a renewed application by MA for permission to appeal from a decision of the AIT, on a reconsideration, dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the Secretary of State’s rejection of his claims for asylum and related relief. The applicant also needs an extension of time in which to apply for permission to appeal of more than two months but it seems to me that there are arguably good reasons for that delay and I would therefore have been prepared to extend time for making the appeal to this court if the appeal otherwise had merit. I turn therefore to the merits of the appeal.

The applicant, a 36-year-old citizen of Ethiopia of Oromo ethnic origin, entered the United Kingdom illegally in June 2005 and claimed asylum several days later. The basis for his claim was that he was suspected of being a supporter of the Oromo Liberation Front and as such had been arrested, detained and verbally and physically abused. After a failed attempt to escape he had been taken to a hospital from which he managed to escape and flee the country. The Secretary of State, as I have said, rejected his application for asylum. On appeal to the Immigration Judge the judge rejected this account altogether but did accept that the applicant was a low-level member of the Rainbow Party, a party which was not illegal but which had joined a coalition, the CUD, to oppose the government.

Reconsideration of the Immigration Judge’s decision was ordered to consider whether the applicant was at risk on return to Ethiopia as a result of his membership of this party. The applicant gave evidence at the reconsideration on this issue and at paragraph 4 of the judge’s decision he summarised the issues which had emerged in the course of the hearing at which the applicant was represented by counsel. What he said was:

“The issue was whether in the light of the objective evidence now available as to the attitude of the Ethiopian authorities towards the opposition coalition, such a person would be at risk upon return. The argument was refined in closing by a reliance upon the evidence of the Appellant’s political activism in the United Kingdom in the following two ways. Firstly the applicant believed that the Ethiopian authorities would know of his activism in the United Kingdom (the sur place claim), and thus he would be at risk of detention immediately upon return. Secondly even if the Appellant had not yet come to their attention and thus faced no risk at the airport on return, the evidence of his political activism in the United Kingdom lent weight to his claim that he would continue to be politically active on behalf of the opposition coalition upon return to Ethiopia, which activism would result in persecution.”

The judge’s conclusions on this issue were:

“45.

I am not satisfied on the evidence that has been placed before me that there is a real (as opposed to fanciful) risk that the Appellant’s actions in the United Kingdom have come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities.”

And on the second issue:

“47 I am satisfied on the objective evidence that if the appellant did demonstrate against the authorities on behalf of the CUD, today and within Ethiopia, that he would thereby be at risk of detention and ill-treatment at the hands of the authorities. I am not however satisfied even on the applicable standard of proof, that he would be likely to do so.”

These conclusions are attacked in the Notice of Appeal, prepared by the applicant himself although that is largely based on Grounds of Appeal prepared by his former solicitors for the purposes of the application for permission to appeal to the AIT. The application to the AIT was refused by a senior immigration judge who said:

“1.

The appellant is an Ethiopian citizen whose claim is based on political opinion (Rainbow Party and Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party Support Organisation). He relies on United Kingdom activities as well as within Ethiopia. His core account was not believed, save that the Immigration Judge accepted that the appellant did have some political involvement whilst in Ethiopia. In particular, neither the fact-finding nor the reviewing Tribunal accepted that the appellant’s Ethiopian activities had come to the attention of the authorities there at any time. The sur place activities were recent and the reviewing Immigration Judge did not accept that they had occurred as claimed.

2.The grounds of appeal disagree with the Tribunal’s findings at length. However on the basis of the facts found (properly) by the Immigration Judge and the reviewing Tribunal, no error of law is identified.”

I agree with this assessment.

The applicant’s Grounds of Appeal added to the grounds settled by solicitors a claim that the Immigration Judge had been against him from the start. He has repeated submissions along those lines to me this morning by saying that up to now he has not got any justice. He submitted that the tribunals had not taken into account his Oromo ethnicity properly so as to assess the risk to him if he were returned to Ethiopia. He says that opposition to government is very hard in Ethiopia; the prisons are full of Oromo.

Well there is in fact nothing in the papers that I have seen to support the submission that the tribunals were against him from the start or that they treated his case in any way unfairly. I understand of course his deep disappointment that he failed to persuade either the Secretary of State or the AIT of the claim that he was putting forward but I am afraid that just because he lost does not mean that he did not get justice although, as I say, he obviously feels strongly that he did not.

When Buxton LJ refused permission to appeal in this case he said that the issues to be considered by the AIT when they considered this case for the second time had been correctly set out -- that is in paragraph 4 which I have quoted. Buxton LJ continued:

““He [that is the judge] then went in detail and with considerable care through the evidence and gave cogent reasons for rejecting the applicant’s case on both points. The case falls directly within the guidance as to the correct approach to appeals from the AIT, given to this court by the House of Lords in AH (Sudan) ‘it is probable that in understanding and applying the law in their specialised field the tribunal has got it right.’ Their decision should be respected unless it is quite clear that they have misdirected themselves in law.”

I agree with those reasons for refusing permission to appeal in this case. There is, it seems to me, no reasonable prospect of demonstrating to this court that the tribunal considering the applicant’s case made any error of law, let alone a material error of law, and so it would not be right to extend time for this appeal because it does not have sufficient merit. Accordingly the applications are refused.