AA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

AA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The appeal was dismissed because the relevant facts for determining responsibility under Dublin II are those existing and known at the time of the first asylum application (in Italy), and the appellant's half-sister did not qualify as a 'guardian' under the Regulation. The UK was not responsible for examining the asylum claim. However, permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the limited ground of whether the six-month time limit for transfer under Article 20 had expired, and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Court for determination of that issue.

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) / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Seek 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', Time Limits for Transfer Under Dublin II
Immigration Law European Union Law Administrative Law Dublin II Regulation Asylum Procedure Judicial Review Interpretation of 'guardian' 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 4 Authorities cited 8 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) / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Seek 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' in the UK
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'guardian' under Article 2(i)(iii) of Dublin II
  3. 3 Whether facts arising after the first asylum application can be considered under Article 5(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the relevant facts for determining responsibility under Dublin II are those existing and known at the time of the first asylum application (in Italy), and the appellant's half-sister did not qualify as a 'guardian' under the Regulation. The UK was not responsible for examining the asylum claim. However, permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the limited ground of whether the six-month time limit for transfer under Article 20 had expired, and the matter was 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