AA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1540 (16 October 2006)

AA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1540 (16 October 2006)

Responsibility for examining the appellant's asylum claim lies with Italy, as the relevant facts and relationships must be assessed as at the time of the first application in Italy, and neither the half-sister nor brother qualified as 'guardian' under the Regulation. The UK is not competent to examine the claim under Article 6. The appeal is dismissed on these grounds. However, permission to apply for judicial review is granted solely on the issue of whether the six-month time limit for transfer under Article 20 has expired, and the matter is remitted to the Administrative Court for determination of that issue.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1540
Parties
Claimant/appellant: AA (Somalia); Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to apply for judicial review granted on the Article 20 time limit issue only; matter remitted to Administrative Court.
Legal Topics
Dublin II Regulation, Asylum Procedure, Judicial Review, Interpretation of 'guardian' Under EU Law, Time Limits for Transfer Under Dublin II
Immigration Law European Union Law Administrative Law Dublin II Regulation Asylum Procedure Judicial Review Interpretation of 'guardian' Under EU Law Time Limits for Transfer Under Dublin II

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AA (Somalia)

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the United Kingdom is responsible for examining the appellant's asylum application under Dublin II Regulation based on the presence of a 'guardian' or family member in the UK
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'guardian' in Article 2(i)(iii) of Dublin II
  3. 3 Timing for determining Member State responsibility under Article 5(2) of Dublin II

Ratio Decidendi

Responsibility for examining the appellant's asylum claim lies with Italy, as the relevant facts and relationships must be assessed as at the time of the first application in Italy, and neither the half-sister nor brother qualified as 'guardian' under the Regulation. The UK is not competent to examine the claim under Article 6. The appeal is dismissed on these grounds. However, permission to apply for judicial review is granted solely on the issue of whether the six-month time limit for transfer under Article 20 has expired, and the matter is remitted to the Administrative Court for determination of that issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to apply for judicial review granted on the Article 20 time limit issue only; matter remitted to Administrative Court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted on the Article 20 time limit issue only