Mlauzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 128 (07 February 2005)

Mlauzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 128 (07 February 2005)

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to overturn the Adjudicator's factual findings in the absence of an error of law; the Adjudicator's reasoning was adequate and supported by evidence; the appellant established a real risk of persecution and Article 3 ECHR breach on return to Zimbabwe; the appeal is allowed and the Adjudicator's decision restored.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 128
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Sithokozile Mlauzi; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Immigration Asylum Appeal / Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Adjudicator's decision restored
Legal Topics
Asylum, Refugee Status, Internal Relocation, Jurisdiction of Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Article 3 ECHR
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Refugee Status Internal Relocation Jurisdiction of Immigration Appeal Tribunal Article 3 ECHR

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sithokozile Mlauzi

Appellant/applicant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Asylum Appeal / Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had jurisdiction to overturn the Adjudicator's factual findings absent an error of law
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator's reasoning on internal relocation and risk was adequate
  3. 3 Whether the appellant faced a real risk of persecution or Article 3 ECHR breach on return to Zimbabwe

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to overturn the Adjudicator's factual findings in the absence of an error of law; the Adjudicator's reasoning was adequate and supported by evidence; the appellant established a real risk of persecution and Article 3 ECHR breach on return to Zimbabwe; the appeal is allowed and the Adjudicator's decision restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Adjudicator's decision restored

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The decision of the Adjudicator is restored.