TG (Central African Republic) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This is a renewed application for permission to appeal, permission having been refused on the papers by Tuckey LJ. To classify this case, it is what I described and Mr Lams agreed was an AIT decision based on Mahmood queue-jumping. It is a decision which the AIT itself said related to matters that were more meritorious than one sometimes finds in this area but nevertheless the AIT reached conclusions to the effect that it would be proportionate to remove the applicant to his home country, the Central African Republic.

I do not propose to go into the factual background because I have indicated to Mr Lams that I propose to grant permission. At the heart of the case there lies this concern: that, in Mr Lam’s submission, this is not a case of Mahmood queue jumping for the simple reason that on the evidence there is no reasonable likelihood of the applicant ever being able to join the queue, let alone come to its head and travel to this country with entry clearance via conventional means.

The decision of the AIT is a detailed one and it does deal carefully with many aspects of the case. On the other hand there was specific evidence before it dealing with the applicant’s impoverished circumstances in whichever country he finds himself and dealing with his earning capacity in the Central African Republic relative to the cost of travel. The first ground of appeal is essentially that the AIT did not take into account that evidence and certainly it did not in terms reject it. At its highest the tribunal took the view that it would take the applicant some time to be in a position to travel, but that was a somewhat vague finding. These matters are complicated by the fact that there is no British Embassy or High Commission in the CAR. In order to obtain entry clearance the applicant would have to travel to Cameroon and would then have to travel, on successfully being granted entry clearance, by air to this country. All that, it is suggested on his behalf, and on the evidence, would simply be beyond his means.

The tribunal attached some importance to the fact that he has managed to find his way from the CAR to this country on a previous occasion. The complaint about that finding is that the evidence is that he did so by land, by boat and thereafter clandestinely overland and by boat, and at little or no cost to himself. If he were to apply for entry clearance he would have to travel conventionally and that is the cost which, by reason of the matters to which I have already referred, would be beyond him.

I have come to the conclusion that these main criticisms subsumed under ground 1 of the proposed grounds of appeal are arguable and would have a real as opposed to fanciful prospect of success. I tend to the view that the other grounds of appeal may be less cogent and that, standing alone, they might not attract a grant of permission; but in the circumstances I do not propose to limit the grant of permission. I think they would add little to the time and cost of a substantive hearing.

For these reasons I grant permission to appeal. The appeal will be heard by a court of three, which may include a High Court judge and should of course include at least one LJ from the Asylum group of LJs.

My time estimate, subject to any contrary representations from Mr Lams, is that it is a half day case.