IH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Lord Justice Longmore:

1. In this application, IH Sudan, number 19 on our list, Mr Adjudicator Simpson determined an appeal from the Home Office’s refusal. That determination was on 11 January 2005. There was a successful application for permission to appeal to the IAT as it was then, but it was determined by the AIT on 30 November 2005. The reason why permission was granted was because the first adjudicator, Mr Adjudicator Simpson, had, supposedly, not satisfactorily dealt with the question of ethnicity of this applicant.

2. The AIT determined that the adjudicator could not possibly have been unaware that this applicant was an African Darfuri even if he had not specifically mentioned that, and they could no see no error of law in the conclusion of the adjudicator that there was no well-founded fear of persecution on the part of IH. The adjudicator explained that part of his reasoning was that IH had lived in Darfur but instead of going 200 miles or so across the boarder to Chad, as the adjudicator felt he would have done had he been in genuine fear of persecution, he in fact went all the way across Sudan to Port Sudan and had sufficient money to make the journey to the United Kingdom.

3. Mr Lee now submits on IH’s behalf that both the adjudicator and the AIT approached the matter the wrong way round because they failed to make relevant findings about the objective material and how desperate things are for all Darfuris, and their conclusion, therefore, that he had no well-founded fear of persecution was based on an illegal foundation because it was not informed by reference to the objective material. For my part I do not consider that that is an argument that has any prospect of success. This is an attempt to appeal a question of fact. The original adjudicator came to conclusions which were open to him on the facts, and the applicant’s attempt to say that he participated in political activity was disbelieved. The adjudicator came to the conclusion that IH was an economic migrant, and I can see no error of law in that nor in the determination of the AIT on appeal and this application will be dismissed, if my Lord agrees. Lord Justice Moses:

4. I agree. Order: Application refused