R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zib

Publisher	United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales)
Author	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Publication Date	5 February 1993
Citation / Document Symbol	[1993] Imm AR 350
Cite as	R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zib, [1993] Imm AR 350, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 5 February 1993, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_HC_QB,3ae6b6663c.html [accessed 4 October 2022]
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT ex parte ZIB

Queen's Bench Division

[1993] Imm AR 350

Hearing Date: 5 February 1993

5 February 1993

Index Terms:

Political asylum -- citizen of the Lebanon -- claimed political asylum on arrival in United Kingdom -- whether refusal by the Secretary of State reasonable -- the limited ambit of the policy of the Secretary of State not to require citizens of the Lebanon to return there. HC 251 para 75.

Held:

Application for leave to move for judicial review. The applicant was a citizen of the Lebanon who had claimed political asylum on his arrival in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State, after enquiry, refused his application.

In seeking judicial review it had been asserted, inter alia, that the Secretary of State in refusing the application had failed to have regard to his settled policy, which was not to require citizens of the Lebanon who expressed a fear of returning to the Lebanon and applied for asylum before 16 December 1992, to return there.

Before the court it was made clear that the Secretary of State's policy of granting exceptional leave to remain, to citizens of the Lebanon who expressed a fear of returning there, was limited to appropriate cases among those who had already been granted leave to enter, in some other capacity, under the immigration rules. It did not extend to those who claimed asylum on arrival.

Held

1. In the circumstances, it was clear that the applicant could not, as counsel acknowledged, rely on the Secretary of State's policy.

2. The Secretary of State's approach to the case could not be faulted on Wednesbury principles.

Counsel:

Miss F Webber for the applicant; J McManus for the respondent

PANEL: Potts J

Judgment One:

POTTS J: This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse political asylum and to remove the applicant to the Lebanon made on 8 January 1993.

The applicant is a Lebanese citizen, now aged 21. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 18 April 1992 and thereafter claimed political asylum. He was interviewed on 28 April 1992 and a political asylum questionnaire was completed. Arrangements were made on his behalf for him to have representation. Representations were made on his behalf and further interviews were conducted.

The applicant's claim to asylum was based on the matters set out in paragraph two of the grounds upon which relief is sought. In view of the fact that this is an application for leave only, in which I have had the advantage and assistance of detailed and helpful submissions by Miss Webber on behalf of the applicant, as well as those of Mr McManus on behalf of the Secretary of State, I consider it unnecessary to rehearse what is set out in paragraphs two, three and five of the grounds. Those matters can be ascertained by reference to the grounds, if necessary.

For convenience, it should be stated early in the judgment that Miss Webber no longer relies on paragraph one of the applicant's grounds which contains an allegation that the Secretary of State erred in law in failing to have regard to his policy under which Lebanese nationals who expressed a fear of returning to Lebanon and who have made applications prior to 16 December 1992 should not be returned there. Miss Webber has not sought to take this point in view of the contents of the affidavit placed before the court on behalf of the respondents and made by Mr Child of the Home Office. In that affidavit, Mr Child says in paragraph three:

"I stress however that exceptional leave was granted as a matter of policy only to after entry asylum applicants." This applicant does not come within that category, hence the course taken by Miss Webber.

I have before me a substantial body of material. The applicant's bundle runs to some 148 pages. The Secretary of State wrote a "minded to refuse" letter in August 1992, which is to be found at page 119 of the bundle, and a decision letter dated December 1992, which is to be found at page 139 of the bundle. A letter dated 7 January 1993, dealing with further material which was laid before the Secretary of State on the applicant's behalf appears at page 45 of the bundle and, finally, a letter of 28 January 1993 dealing with yet further representations made on behalf of the applicant is to be found at page 83 of the bundle.

The letter of 7 January 1993 addressed further evidence obtained by the applicant in the Lebanon in the form of two reports purporting to emanate from a doctor in Tyr dated 4 January 1993, referring to the applicant's brother, Fuad, who, I quote "suffered a massive wound to the left thigh on 14 September 1991" and a written confirmation from the hospital that Fuad was admitted to hospital on 14 September 1991.

It is said on the applicant's behalf that these documents go to support his contention that his family was subjected to attacks by Hezbollah in the Lebanon, that his brother was a victim, and that the report of the doctor, in particular, is indicative of this fact. Therefore there is evidence that were the applicant to be returned he would be subjected to the same fate.

I have reminded myself of the principles governing the jurisdiction of this court in cases of this type. Those principles are well known and do not require rehearsal. It is sufficient for me to say that I have given the most anxious consideration to all the available material and I have in mind the helpful submissions made on this applicant's behalf.

When the Secretary of State came to summarise his attitude to the fresh material adduced in letters dated 5 and 6 January, he said in his letter of 7 January (see page 47):

"The Secretary of State remains of the view for the reasons given in the minded to refuse and final refusal letter, that Mr Zib has not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution within the terms of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The Secretary of State is not prepared to alter his decision in the light of the information you have provided in your representations of 5 January 1992 for the reasons given above."

I interpose to say that this refers to the material from the hospital and doctor in the Lebanon.

"The decision to refuse Mr Zib refugee status stands". The letter goes on to deal with the directions for removal.

In my judgment, the Secretary of State was entitled so to regard the additional material adduced. I have examined the reasons given by the Secretary of State for arriving at the conclusion summarised in the passage above, in the minded to refuse letter and the decision letter. I am unable to detect any flaw in the Secretary of State's reasoning. No error of law is disclosed. There is, in my judgment, no irrationality. The applicant has no arguable case for judicial review.

Therefore, there are no grounds for granting the leave sought. I reiterate what has been said, I apprehend, many times by courts hearing applications of this nature. Were this court on this material to grant leave, the court would be acting as a Court of Appeal and substituting its own view for that of the Minister. That is not the function of this court. This court is a court of review.

In arriving at the conclusion that I have expressed, I wish to make it plain that I have had regard to the points taken by Miss Webber concerning the failure on the part of the Secretary of State to disclose to the applicant what he is recorded to have said to the immigration authorities on his arrival in this country. That conversation was revealed to the applicant, so I have been told, two hours before this application was made. Having regard to the contents of the asylum application questionnaire, I am satisfied that the applicant has not been disadvantaged in not having sight of the document before it was supplied today. In my judgment, it is clear from the asylum application questionnaire and the decision letter referred to that the Secretary of State did not misdirect himself in any way in arriving at the decision of fact set out in those documents. This application is, accordingly, refused.

DISPOSITION:

Application dismissed

SOLICITORS:

Aaronson & Co, London, SW5; Treasury Solicitor