Mungu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 360 (20 February 2003)

Mungu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 360 (20 February 2003)

The adjudicator was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence as not credible, to find the identification card unreliable based on its features, and to conclude that neither the appellant nor Mr Mukoka faced a real risk on return or a breach of Article 8 ECHR. The burden of proof was not misapplied, and the grant of exceptional leave to remain to Mr Mukoka did not establish a bar to return.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 360
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Marie France Wetshi Mungu; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (asylum/immigration) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum, Burden of Proof, Forgery of Documents, Article 8 ECHR, Exceptional Leave to Remain
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Burden of Proof Forgery of Documents Article 8 ECHR Exceptional Leave to Remain

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie France Wetshi Mungu

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (asylum/immigration) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment on Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator misapplied the burden of proof regarding alleged forgery of an identification card
  2. 2 Whether the grant of exceptional leave to remain to Mr Mukoka should have been treated as evidence of risk on return
  3. 3 Whether removal of the appellant would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence as not credible, to find the identification card unreliable based on its features, and to conclude that neither the appellant nor Mr Mukoka faced a real risk on return or a breach of Article 8 ECHR. The burden of proof was not misapplied, and the grant of exceptional leave to remain to Mr Mukoka did not establish a bar to return.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs, save for a direction for detailed assessment of the appellant's costs