Lusala, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 420 (25 March 2004)

Lusala, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 420 (25 March 2004)

There was no error of law by the tribunal as the new UNHCR material and country guidance were not before it at the relevant time; the proper remedy for new evidence is to present it to the Secretary of State, not to the appellate court.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 420
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Nsongo Lusala; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum, Persecution on Grounds of Ethnicity, Military Service Objection, Article 3 ECHR, Error of Law in Tribunal Decisions
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Persecution on Grounds of Ethnicity Military Service Objection Article 3 ECHR Error of Law in Tribunal Decisions

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nsongo Lusala

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal erred in law by not considering new country guidance and UNHCR material regarding conditions for Hutus in the Democratic Republic of Congo
  2. 2 Whether failure to consider such material constitutes an error of law justifying remittal

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error of law by the tribunal as the new UNHCR material and country guidance were not before it at the relevant time; the proper remedy for new evidence is to present it to the Secretary of State, not to the appellate court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Public funding order of appellant's costs