SJ (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This is a renewed application against a decision of Designated Immigration Judge Olson dated 23 November 2007, dismissing on first stage reconsideration the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of his asylum and human rights claims.

The appellant is an Iraqi Arab. He arrived in the UK on 13 February 2007, giving one name. He was returned on the same day to France. He re-entered the UK on 8 March 2007 using a different name. He was detained. He claimed asylum and leave to remain on human rights grounds. His case is that he is a highly successful sportsman in the field of Tae Kwon Do, reaching the Iraqi national team in 2006. He claimed that his club had been approached by the local police force asking for training and self-defence, which he provided. Subsequently, the whole team was kidnapped, and later some or all of them were murdered.

His claim for asylum was put on two grounds. The first was that he would be specifically at risk because of the training that he had given to the local police force. The second and broader ground was that, by reason of his Tae Kwon Do participation, he would be at real risk of kidnap as had happened to others. The immigration judge who originally heard his appeal rejected his account of having trained the police. Dealing with the second limb of his claim the judge said as follows, at paragraph 19 of her adjudication dated 23 May 2007:

“Although it was argued by Ms Ishfaq [who then represented the appellant] that the Appellant, simply by reason of his Tae Kwon Do participation, was at risk in Iraq, I did not find that every sports person or celebrity was at real risk of kidnap, nor did I accept the submission made to me by Ms Ishfaq that the Appellant would have to go back to Tae Kwon Do if returned.”

The appellant appealed, and reconsideration was ordered by Senior Immigration Judge Lane on 27 June 2007. He observed:

“Paragraph 19 of the determination is arguably unreasoned. Given the evidence about conditions in Iraq, the Immigration Judge ought arguably to have considered more carefully whether the appellant would be at real risk as a Tae Kwon Do practitioner.”

The reconsideration by Designated Immigration Judge Olson on 23 November 2007 was relatively brief. He expressed his conclusions as follows:

“9.

It is clear from the determination that the Immigration Judge was referred to the risk run by sportsmen as she concluded that she did not find that every sportsperson or celebrity was at real risk of kidnap nor did she accept the submission that the appellant would have to go back to practicing tae kwon do if he returned to Iraq.

10.

In reaching her decision she clearly weighed in the balance the risk that was run by sportsmen and women in Iraq but concluded for the reasons which she sets out in her determination that the appellant’s credibility was damaged as a result of inconsistencies in his account. She was perfectly entitled to come to that conclusion on the evidence before her and when read as a whole the determination discloses no material error of law. The findings of fact and conclusions were properly open to the Immigration Judge on the evidence before her and she has properly explained the reasoning for reaching the conclusion she did.”

Mr Jorro on the appellant’s behalf has put forward three grounds of appeal. It seems to me that they all merge with one another into really rather a short single point, and it is the point made by the Senior Immigration Judge when he ordered reconsideration. The argument is that the judge did not give adequate reasoning for her conclusion that this appellant was not at any real risk of suffering the same fate as had happened to other members of the national team. Mr Jorro points out further to me that the rejection of the appellant’s credibility in relation to his claim of training of the police was really quite irrelevant to the question whether the first immigration judge gave adequate reasons for rejecting his claim based on participation of the national team. I am conscious that the single Lord Justice who examined the case on the papers did not think that there was a real prospect of success. However, having listened to Mr Jorro and reflected on the matter, I have come to the conclusion that there is. The case troubled the Senior Immigration Judge for reasons which are, in my view, certainly arguable.

In those circumstances I will give permission to appeal.