Civi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 446 (12 April 2005)

Civi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 446 (12 April 2005)

It is arguable that the Tribunal wrongly regarded itself as constrained to apply only the country guidance in force at the time of the adjudicator's decision, thereby disregarding a material factor (the applicant being asked to become an informer) that was relevant under the updated guidance. This error justifies granting permission to appeal.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 446
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Musa Civi; Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (asylum and Human Rights) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Asylum, Country Guidance, Internal Relocation, Risk of Persecution, Procedural Fairness
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Country Guidance Internal Relocation Risk of Persecution Procedural Fairness

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Musa Civi

Claimant/appellant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (asylum and Human Rights) / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal erred in refusing to apply updated country guidance (A v Secretary of State for the Home Department) instead of previous guidance (Polat)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the significance of the applicant being asked to become an informer
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation to Istanbul was a viable and reasonable option

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the Tribunal wrongly regarded itself as constrained to apply only the country guidance in force at the time of the adjudicator's decision, thereby disregarding a material factor (the applicant being asked to become an informer) that was relevant under the updated guidance. This error justifies granting permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
  • Time estimate for hearing is 4 hours.