Dabanli, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2002] EWCA Civ 1091 (19 July 2002)

Dabanli, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2002] EWCA Civ 1091 (19 July 2002)

The adjudicator's findings that the applicant was a low-level supporter of Dev Sol, had not been significantly ill-treated, and would not face persecution or ill-treatment on return to Turkey were open to her on the evidence. The determination, though succinct and imperfectly expressed, was not so flawed as to render the case arguable on judicial review. The President of the IAT was entitled to refuse permission to appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1091
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Cumali Dabanli; Defendant/respondent: Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (asylum) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (renewed Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Asylum, Judicial Review, Refugee Status, Standard of Review
Immigration Law Administrative Law Asylum Judicial Review Refugee Status Standard of Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cumali Dabanli

Claimant/applicant

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (asylum) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (renewed Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's findings on risk of persecution and ill-treatment were flawed or inadequately reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing permission to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's findings that the applicant was a low-level supporter of Dev Sol, had not been significantly ill-treated, and would not face persecution or ill-treatment on return to Turkey were open to her on the evidence. The determination, though succinct and imperfectly expressed, was not so flawed as to render the case arguable on judicial review. The President of the IAT was entitled to refuse permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused