CASE OF VILVARAJAH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

No violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 13

The first applicant , PERSON , born in DATE , is a citizen of GPE , of NORP ethnic origin . He worked as an assistant in his father ’s shop in ORG , LOC , in the northern part of the island . On several occasions the NORP army had attacked his district , killing people and destroying property . His cousin and CARDINAL other men were killed by the army in DATE and the family shop was raided and damaged on CARDINAL DATE .

He stated that he was detained on CARDINAL occasions by naval forces in DATE and DATE and assaulted . On the first occasion he was driving a minibus which broke down close to a naval base . He and his passengers were detained by a navy patrol for TIME . He claimed to have been heavily beaten . On the second occasion , whilst driving the minibus , he was stopped by a naval patrol and detained for TIME . They accompanied the bus back to his home town of PERSON where they opened fire at random on people there . Fire was also exchanged between a NORP separatist group , ORG ( " LTTE " ) , and the naval personnel , who used the bus passengers as shields .

During a major NORP army offensive to retake GPE from the NORP , the first applicant ’s family lost their shop and belongings and were at serious risk of losing their lives . In DATE his father arranged with an agent in GPE for him to be sent to GPE . He travelled on his own passport to ORG on DATE . On DATE he travelled with a NORP passport ( provided by an agent in GPE ) to GPE via GPE . He arrived in GPE on DATE seeking entry to GPE as a visitor for DATE , in transit to GPE , GPE , where he said he was going for DATE . He was detained pending enquiries . On admitting that he was not the rightful holder of the NORP passport in which his photograph had been substituted for that of the true owner , he was refused leave to enter GPE , under paragraph CARDINAL of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) which requires that a person seeking admission must produce a valid passport or other identity document .

On DATE he requested asylum in GPE under the DATE LAW relating to LAW as amended by LAW ( " the DATE LAW " ) . On DATE he was interviewed by immigration officers in the NORP language with the assistance of an interpreter . He stated that it was unsafe for him to remain in GPE for the reasons outlined above .

The applicant ’s asylum request was then referred to LAW . However , they concluded that he had not shown that he had a well - founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention . On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused his request for asylum . He was informed of this decision in the following terms :

" You have applied for asylum in GPE on the grounds that you hold a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a social group or political opinion . You said it was unsafe for you to remain in GPE due to Government operations around GPE . You also said you had been detained on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and DATE for TIME respectively and that on CARDINAL DATE the army raided your family business . But it is noted that the incidents you have related were random and part of the army ’s general activities directed at discovering and dealing with GPE extremists and that they do not constitute evidence of persecution .

You have produced no other evidence in support of your application for asylum .

The Secretary of ORG has considered the individual circumstances of your case and in addition the situation in GPE and has concluded that you have not established a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE .

Accordingly your application for asylum is refused . Since you do not otherwise qualify to enter GPE , ORG has been instructed to arrange for your removal to GPE to which country you are returnable under para . CARDINAL of schedule QUANTITY DATE . "

Arrangements for his removal to GPE were made for CARDINAL DATE . The applicant then instituted proceedings for judicial review in which he sought , unsuccessfully , to have the Secretary of ORG ’s decision quashed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant was returned to GPE on DATE . He was escorted by police officers , the Sri NORP authorities having been forewarned . His name was published in GPE newspapers . He was interviewed briefly on arrival by GPE immigration authorities at the airport . A member of ORG was also present at the airport on arrival . The removal expenses were paid by ORG and the first applicant had funds in excess of £ MONEY .

After his return an appeal was lodged in GPE by his solicitors under LAW of LAW DATE against the asylum refusal ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . They went to GPE to interview and take statements from him . He confirmed that thanks to the publicity surrounding his case and the presence of the member of ORG he was given little trouble at the airport . He stated that he was questioned for TIME by LOC as to whether he had connections with NORP separatist groups like ORG Eelam ( " PLOTE " ) and the ORG , which he denied . The police noted his address and took his fingerprints .

The applicant stated that he returned to his native village to avoid the Sri NORP authorities and denunciation by the ORG with whom he had been associated , in fact , but who were now cooperating with the NORP Peace Keeping Forces ( " IPKF " ) in identifying their former members and alleged NORP members .

He also said that DATE after his return he was denounced to the ORG and summoned to the local Chief Officer ’s Office . He was accused of connections with the NORP and became frightened . However , he was allowed to return home after questioning . On a visit to GPE in DATE he was rounded up with other NORP and detained for TIME by the IPKF . They were paraded in front of masked men who identified certain persons . He was afraid they would make an error , but he was released .

The applicant recounted other incidents which led him to fear IPKF ill - treatment because of his earlier involvement with the ORG and the ORG ’s arbitrary manner of dealing with NORP . When he went to GPE to see his solicitors he had to go through numerous GPE and GPE checkpoints doubling the length of the TIME journey .

On DATE the Adjudicator found in the applicant ’s favour and he was subsequently allowed to return to GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Shortly after his return he made a further application for asylum which is still under consideration . He has been granted exceptional leave to remain initially for DATE and thereafter until DATE .

The second applicant , PERSON , born in DATE , comes from GPE in the north of GPE , an area which had been under the control of the NORP when he was living there . He stated that in DATE the GPE army staged a reign of terror . People could not go out in the street . Young men were arrested without reason ; some were tortured or " disappeared " or were shot on sight . Everyone was suspected of being a GPE separatist and lived in fear . When the army conducted searches the applicant and his family hid in trenches . His house was searched regularly until DATE . It was destroyed in DATE . The family had to go for DATE without food and starved because it was dangerous to go out to fetch it . The army ’s DATE bombing of the NORP area was indiscriminate . It was this and damage to his home and business on DATE which made him decide to leave . He claimed to have been questioned by the police about the NORP , although he has never belonged to them .

The applicant left GPE having lost all his possessions apart from QUANTITY . He went to GPE where he was arrested by the police on CARDINAL DATE at his uncle ’s home . He stated that he was held for TIME and tortured , resulting in injury and scarring to his right leg .

On DATE the applicant travelled by air from GPE to ORG on his NORP passport . On DATE he then travelled with a false NORP passport , obtained through an agent in ORG , via GPE to GPE . He sought entry as a visitor for DATE , in transit to GPE , GPE .

The applicant was refused leave to enter by the GPE immigration authorities on DATE under paragraph CARDINAL of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He then revealed his GPE nationality and requested asylum . On DATE he was interviewed by immigration officers about his asylum application in the NORP language with the assistance of an interpreter . He explained his fear of persecution if returned to GPE .

His case was then referred to LAW . It was concluded that he had not demonstrated that he had a well - founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention . On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused his asylum request . He was informed of this decision in the following terms :

" You have applied for asylum in GPE on the grounds that you hold a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a social group or political opinion . The Secretary of ORG has considered your application . You said it was unsafe for you to return to GPE because of the Government operation around GPE . You stated that your house and business LOC had been destroyed by Government shelling . You also said that you had been detained for TIME in DATE and had been assaulted . But it appears that the destruction of your house and business resulted from a random shelling arising from civil disorder and it appears that your arrest and brief detention were part of the army ’s general activities directed at discovering and dealing with GPE extremists .

The applicant was returned to GPE on DATE . His reception at the airport was the same as that of the first applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was then interviewed by the Sri NORP police for TIME and fingerprinted . He stayed at his uncle ’s house in GPE for DATE until it was safe to travel to GPE .

After his return to GPE an appeal was lodged in GPE by his solicitors under LAW of LAW DATE against the refusal of asylum . They went to GPE to interview and take statements from him ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He told them that on DATE he was travelling to GPE by bicycle from his home when he was stopped at an IPKF checkpoint . GPE men and boys were lined up for identification by CARDINAL masked men , CARDINAL of whom picked out the applicant . He was taken with CARDINAL others to an ORG camp in a GPE house where he was beaten for TIME . Part of the time he was clubbed with sand - filled PVC pipes . At the same time questions were shouted at him about the ORG , of which the applicant denied any knowledge . He was kept in a small room without bedding or sanitary facilities , with CARDINAL other detainees who were receiving similar ill - treatment . Some of them were hung upside down and beaten . The applicant was beaten intensely on CARDINAL occasions over DATE for periods of TIME .

He was detained until DATE , and questioned by the same men . He lost QUANTITY in weight , had bad headaches and was very frightened . The NORP soldiers constantly told him that if he did not talk they would keep him locked up for ever . The detainees were given rice , dahl and chapatis and insufficient water . They became dehydrated and constipated . They were filmed and apparently later shown on television as surrendered ORG men . The applicant was rescued by members of his family who bribed the local IPKF commander with gold .

On release he was told to report DATE . He then fled to GPE . He stated that life there at that time was very tense for NORP . There was a constant danger of arbitrary arrest , detention and denunciation by informers . However , he felt safer in GPE than in GPE . To justify his stay in GPE he registered as a student .

On CARDINAL DATE the Adjudicator found in the applicant ’s favour and he was subsequently allowed to return to GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Shortly after his return he made a further application for asylum which is still under consideration . He has been granted exceptional leave to remain initially for DATE and thereafter until DATE .

The third applicant , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , comes from LOC , where his family lives , in the north of GPE . In DATE he witnessed the killing of his brother by navy personnel . His brother was fishing in a boat with a friend off the coast at LOC . ORG personnel came by in a boat and shot and killed both of them without warning or reason .

In DATE security forces came to the area and rounded up male NORP , including the third applicant . They were detained for DATE and assaulted with rifle butts and sticks . Their names and family details were noted . Some of them were taken away by the army . In DATE CARDINAL male NORP , including the applicant , were detained in GPE . They were assaulted . The security forces took away CARDINAL people and shot and killed them DATE . The bodies were burned .

In DATE male NORP were also rounded up and detained for DATE . The applicant was again detained . CARDINAL people were taken away , shot and killed . The bodies were burned on the spot .

PERSON has been regularly subjected to air bombardment and shelling by the army . The applicant ’s family house was damaged during an air bombardment in DATE and the family had to move to another house in the area .

The applicant stated that he was in the ORG from DATE until he left GPE . He did some military training and was a sentry for the camp . He also carried communications for them . He claimed , however , never to have been involved in any violence or terrorist activities .

His father decided that the applicant should leave GPE as he feared for his son ’s safety as a young male GPE . Arrangements were made through a NORP agent in LOC for his son to leave the country . The applicant travelled to GPE on DATE and stayed with the agent until DATE . He travelled to GPE via GPE , GPE and GPE . On the way to GPE airport , the minibus in which he was travelling was stopped at an army checkpoint just before the airport . The applicant and the other passengers were accused of going for training with militants in GPE . They were taken to an office and held for TIME , questioned and fingerprinted .

The applicant was CARDINAL of a group of CARDINAL NORP who arrived at FAC , GPE , on CARDINAL DATE and claimed asylum . He originally stated that he was in transit to GPE . The CARDINAL NORP were all detained pending the proceedings .

DATE . He was interviewed by immigration officers in the NORP language with the aid of an interpreter . He described the events outlined above . At that stage he averred that he was not a member of the ORG and , in fact , did not make this claim to the NORP authorities until DATE as he feared it would have adverse effects on his asylum application . His case was referred to LAW . They concluded that the applicant had not established a well - founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention and his application for asylum was refused on DATE . However , an application for leave to apply for judicial review was made to ORG and granted on DATE . On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s solicitors that a fresh decision would be taken on the asylum claim .

Representations from GPE ( " UKIAS " ) were received and the applicant was re - interviewed about his asylum claim on DATE . The application for asylum was reconsidered in ORG but they again concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that he had a well - founded fear of persecution . Details of the case were referred to the Secretary of ORG , who reached a similar conclusion . Accordingly , on DATE a refusal letter was served on the third applicant , which read as follows :

" You have applied for asylum in GPE on the grounds that you hold a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a social group or political opinion . The Secretary of ORG has further considered your application . You said it was too dangerous to stay in GPE . People were being arrested indiscriminately and killed by the security forces . You also said that you had been detained on CARDINAL occasions DATE and that you had been detained for DATE after being arrested with your travelling companions on the way to GPE . Lastly you said your brother , GPE , had been shot by the navy in DATE . But it is noted that the experiences to which you refer were the result of civil disorder in GPE rather than persecution within the terms of LAW relating to ORG and that your arrests were part of the army ’s general activities directed at discovering and dealing with GPE extremists and that on each occasion you were released without charge after a short period . It is further noted that your brother was shot dead by the navy when he failed to obey a lawful order . The Secretary of ORG has considered the individual circumstances of your case and in addition the situation in GPE and has concluded that you have not established a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE . Accordingly your application for asylum is refused . Since you do not otherwise qualify to enter GPE , ORG has been instructed to arrange for your removal to GPE to which country you are returnable under para . CARDINAL of schedule QUANTITY DATE . "

Arrangements for his removal to GPE were made for CARDINAL DATE . The applicant then instituted proceedings for judicial review in which he sought , unsuccessfully , to have the Secretary of ORG ’s decision quashed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below )

The applicant was removed to GPE on DATE . His reception at the airport was the same as that of the first applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s representatives submitted a statement he had made to them about his treatment in GPE on his return there as of CARDINAL DATE . He alleged that on his return he was held by ORG ) for DATE and treated like a criminal whilst being interrogated about his reasons for having gone to GPE . He then stayed with his parents for DATE . On DATE whilst passing through a checkpoint he was identified by a masked man as having being involved with the NORP and detained by the ORG . He was interrogated about the NORP and tortured every four or five days . He was stripped and beaten with iron bars and sand - filled PVC pipes . Sometimes he was tied upside down and a fire , with chillies , lit underneath his head lasting TIME until he passed out . On CARDINAL occasions he was subjected to electric shock treatment to his genitals . He admitted his previous involvement with the ORG . He was released on DATE after his parents managed to bribe the Commanding Officer . He then spent DATE in hospital as he could hardly walk . However , he was rearrested on DATE by the ORG , accompanied by members of ORG ( " EPRLF " ) . He received the same ill - treatment as before and was released on DATE following a further bribe from his parents . He went into hiding for DATE and tried to travel to GPE but was cheated by an agent who left him in GPE . He then had to return to GPE in DATE and hid in GPE . There he was once beaten up by navy personnel . Since his return to GPE he stated that the ORG and ORG are still harassing his family .

Although the applicant ’s whereabouts were undisclosed for some time , he kept in contact with his solicitors , who lodged an appeal in GPE on his behalf against the refusal of asylum . This appeal was successful . The Adjudicator upheld his claims on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was subsequently allowed to return to GPE on DATE , where he was granted exceptional leave to remain initially for DATE and thereafter until DATE . Shortly after his return he made a further application for asylum which is still under consideration .

The fourth applicant , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , comes from ORG but received his schooling in LOC until DATE . He claimed to have been detained CARDINAL times by the Sri NORP armed forces : in DATE for DATE , in DATE for DATE , in DATE for DATE , in DATE for DATE and in DATE for DATE .

In DATE the army set fire to his school at LOC . DATE after the raid he was detained at the local army camp for TIME and accused of burning down the school . The principal of the school protested and secured his release .

In DATE , while the applicant was on his way to school by bus , an army helicopter bombed a bridge which the bus was to cross and everyone was ordered off the bus . He was detained at an army camp for TIME and threatened with ill - treatment . His elder brother in the meantime fled to GPE ( DATE ) where he was granted political asylum .

After DATE there was intensive shelling by the army and on DATE the family home in ORG was destroyed . He has not seen either his mother or sister since . His father returned to the family house to find it destroyed and on DATE took his son to NORP by bus . They were arrested at ORG , QUANTITY from GPE , and held at the army camp there for DATE .

DATE . They arrived in GPE on DATE , where his father arranged with an agent for his son to leave GPE . The applicant had felt insecure in GPE as he had GPE identity cards and the authorities knew he was not a local . He subsequently flew to GPE , arriving at FAC airport on CARDINAL DATE where he requested asylum . Several pages of his passport had been removed . He was CARDINAL of the group of CARDINAL Tamil asylum seekers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant was detained pending the proceedings . He was interviewed on CARDINAL occasions by an immigration officer in the NORP language with the assistance of an interpreter . During these interviews he described the events outlined above . He also stated that he had not been politically involved in GPE .

His case was then referred to LAW . They concluded that the applicant had not established a well - founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention and his application was refused on CARDINAL DATE . However , an application for leave to apply for judicial review was made to ORG and granted on DATE . On DATE ORG informed the fourth applicant ’s solicitors that a fresh decision would be taken on the asylum claim .

DATE . Representations from ORG were received and the applicant was re - interviewed about his asylum claim on DATE . The application for asylum was reconsidered in ORG but they again concluded that he had not demonstrated that he had a well - founded fear of persecution . Details of the case were referred to the Secretary of ORG , who reached a similar conclusion . The fourth applicant was informed of this decision by ORG on DATE in a letter which read as follows :

" You applied for asylum in GPE on the grounds that you have a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion . The Secretary of ORG has further considered your application .

Nevertheless the Secretary of ORG does consider individual applications for asylum made by NORP from GPE to see whether they fall within the terms of the DATE ORG . This depends on the circumstances in the individual case .

In support of your application you said that your life was in danger in GPE and that your house had been damaged by army shelling . You also said that you had once been held up by the army with the others on your school bus for TIME , and also that the bus you were travelling on from GPE to GPE had been held up by the army for TIME . At your interview on DATE you added that you had been picked up by the army and held for TIME DATE .

However the Secretary of ORG has also taken account of the fact that the damage to your house had been caused by indiscriminate shellings , that neither you nor your travelling companions had been harmed in any way on the CARDINAL occasions you were held up and that you had not been harmed while detained for TIME DATE . Moreover GPE have stated on your behalf that you did not stay in GPE after reaching there on DATE because you felt insecure on account of holding a NORP identity card and because the authorities knew that you were not a local . You stated at a further interview in DATE that you thought your father , who had accompanied you to GPE and saw you off on the plane on DATE , had probably gone back to take up his job as a teacher in a government run school and had re - established contact with your mother and sister .

Having taken account of all the matters you have put forward in support of your application and of the other matters set out in this letter the Secretary of ORG is not satisfied that you have a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE within the terms of the DATE ORG .

Since you do not otherwise qualify for leave to enter GPE , ORG have been instructed to arrange your removal to GPE to which country you are returnable under para . CARDINAL of schedule CARDINAL to LAW DATE . "

Arrangements for the applicant ’s removal to GPE were made for DATE . The applicant then instituted proceedings for judicial review in which he sought , unsuccessfully , to have the Secretary of ORG ’s decision quashed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant was removed to GPE on DATE . His reception at the airport was the same as that of the first applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was then interviewed aggressively by the Sri NORP police for TIME about his association with NORP groups and the travel agencies who had been involved in his escape to GPE . His fingerprints were taken .

After his return to GPE an appeal was lodged in GPE by his solicitors against the refusal of asylum . They went to GPE to interview and take statements from him . He told his solicitors that on his return he stayed with a family friend in GPE because no trace had been found of his family . He did not go out unless escorted by a NORP speaker who could deal with any trouble from the police . He had many difficulties because he did not have his identity card which had been lost by the ORG immigration service . He did not try to find his family because he could not get through the many checkpoints .

The applicant was arrested without any identity card by the police on or DATE , detained for TIME and questioned about his activities in GPE . A family friend persuaded the police to release him . The atmosphere in GPE for NORP was very tense since they were subject to attack by NORP . In DATE the applicant was again arrested by the police , detained TIME , beaten with belts and kicked for TIME . He was accused of hiding NORP terrorists from the ORG group . The family friend managed to bribe someone to obtain his release . The beating aggravated an ulcer condition that began when the applicant was in GPE . As a result he had to spend DATE in hospital .

The applicant was further distressed to see a television report in which CARDINAL of his relatives were shown to have been killed in crossfire between the ORG and the ORG QUANTITY from his home village .

The applicant ’s appeal in GPE was successful . The Adjudicator upheld his claims on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He was subsequently allowed to return to GPE on DATE , where he was granted exceptional leave to remain initially for DATE and thereafter until DATE . Shortly after his return he made a further application for asylum which is still under consideration .

The fifth applicant , PERSON , born in DATE , comes from FAC which is in the north west of GPE QUANTITY from GPE . This town was constantly bombarded by the ORG ’s military forces towards DATE . Many NORP were hiding in the jungle . His family home and shop were burnt down in DATE by soldiers . He believed that CARDINAL of his brothers had been shot dead by the army in DATE . He had already witnessed the army killing CARDINAL people in DATE . At that time the applicant was hiding in the jungle for his safety . He was also shot at by soldiers passing through his town . Since DATE problems have existed in the applicant ’s area with the town ’s NORP majority . Many people have been killed and buildings destroyed . There had been rumours of massacres elsewhere .

An army camp was situated QUANTITY from the applicant ’s home . Young men were particularly at risk . If the military saw them they were liable to summary arrest , torture or even murder . People ran away when they saw soldiers coming , although by the time the applicant left GPE they were mostly confined to their camps . Nevertheless soldiers would search for people in convoys . The applicant ’s area was controlled by GPE separatists . His house was searched DATE by the army . He was not a member of any political group or terrorist organisation .

The applicant paid an agent CARDINAL GPE rupees to help him leave GPE . He arrived at FAC on DATE and claimed asylum , although he had originally planned to go to GPE . Several pages had been removed from his passport . On DATE he was interviewed in the NORP language with the assistance of an interpreter . During this interview he described the events outlined above .

The applicant ’s request for asylum was then referred to LAW . They concluded that he had not demonstrated a well - founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention . Details of the case were referred to the Secretary of ORG , who reached a similar conclusion . In a letter dated DATE , the applicant was informed of the refusal of his asylum request in the following terms :

" You have applied for asylum in GPE on the grounds that you have a well - founded fear of persecution in GPE for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular group or political opinion . GPE has in DATE experienced considerable disorder which the GPE authorities have had to take measures to control . As a result of this disorder individuals of all ethnic groups have suffered . However the Secretary of ORG , having considered all the available evidence , does not consider that NORP in GPE are a persecuted group who have a claim to refugee status under the DATE LAW simply by virtue of their ethnic or national origins .

In support of your application you said that it was impossible to live in GPE because NORP are being persecuted . There was an army camp QUANTITY from your village and villagers were always being chased away by troops . You said that your GPE home was burnt down in DATE together with the rest of your village and that you had been questioned and threatened by troops in DATE and your shop had been burnt down . You also said that CARDINAL of your CARDINAL brothers had been shot dead by troops .

However the Secretary of ORG has also taken account of the fact that you lived safely in GPE for DATE following the destruction of your GPE home and your shop and that your parents have lived in a small house the other side of the forest from where they used to live and that you helped on your father ’s land . Your parents , CARDINAL other brothers and QUANTITY sisters , some married with families of their own have , on the information which you have provided , continued to live safely in GPE to the present time .

As you do not otherwise qualify for entry under LAW I therefore refuse you leave to enter . "

The applicant was returned to GPE on DATE . His reception at the airport was the same as that of the first applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On returning to GPE he had difficulties because , like the fourth applicant , he had no identity card . It had been temporarily lost by the ORG immigration service and was returned to him by DATE . He obtained a forged card and managed to escape arrest during numerous police searches . His brother joined the ORG and the applicant had money extorted out of him for their cause . He was suspected by the Sri NORP and NORP authorities and is still being sought by them . In DATE he fled to GPE after learning that his father and brother had been detained by the ORG .

Although his whereabouts were undisclosed for some time , the applicant kept in contact with his solicitors , who lodged an appeal in GPE on his behalf against the refusal of asylum . This appeal was successful . The Adjudicator upheld his claims on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was subsequently allowed to return to GPE on DATE , where he was granted exceptional leave to remain initially for DATE and thereafter until DATE . He made a further application for asylum in DATE which is still under consideration .

The first CARDINAL applicants instituted proceedings before ORG seeking leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of ORG ’s refusal to grant asylum . Their applications were refused by a single judge on CARDINAL DATE . Further applications to a single judge in ORG were also rejected on DATE . ORG refused to defer the removal of the first CARDINAL applicants , scheduled for DATE , to enable applications to be made to a full ORG on DATE . Applications were then made to ORG of ORG on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ( a DATE ) alleging that the Secretary of ORG ’s refusal to defer removal unreasonably denied the first CARDINAL applicants’ right to renew their applications to ORG .

The Duty Judge accepted the submission and issued an injunction against their removal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicants leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of ORG ’s decision .

After the refusal by the Secretary of ORG of the fourth and fifth applicants’ application for asylum they too instituted proceedings for judicial review and were granted leave to apply .

DATE . All CARDINAL applications were dismissed by ORG on DATE by Mr Justice PERSON . On appeal , however , ORG quashed the decisions refusing asylum on CARDINAL DATE . The Secretary of ORG then appealed to ORG which , on CARDINAL DATE , gave judgment in his favour ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte PERSON and conjoined appeals [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

The applicants’ case before ORG concerned the proper interpretation of LAW ) of the DATE Refugee Convention as amended which defines a refugee as a person who has a " well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ... " .

ORG found that the test was an objective one and that there has to be demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood , or a real and substantial risk , that the person will be persecuted if returned to his own country . The evidence before ORG confirmed that in reaching his decision not to grant asylum the Secretary of ORG had applied the test in the DATE Refugee Convention . In the course of the judgment the following opinions were delivered :

Lord PERSON of GPE : " The terms of [ the Secretary of ORG ’s ] decision letters make it clear that he has proceeded on the basis of the objective situation in GPE as understood by him . The affidavit of PERSON , an official of ORG , indicates that the Secretary of ORG took into account reports of the refugee unit of his department compiled from sources such as press articles , journals and ORG publications , and also information supplied to him by ORG and as a result of recent visits to GPE by ministers . It is well known that for a considerable time GPE , or at least certain parts of that country , have been in a serious state of civil disorder , amounting at times to civil war . The authorities have taken steps to suppress the disorders and to locate and detain those responsible for them . These steps , together with the activities of the subversives , have naturally resulted in painful and distressing experiences for many persons innocently caught up in the troubles . As the troubles occurred principally in areas inhabited by NORP , these are the people who have suffered most . The Secretary of ORG has in his decision letters expressed the view that army activities aimed at discovering and dealing with GPE extremists do not constitute evidence of persecution of NORP as such . This was not disputed by counsel for any of the applicants , nor was it seriously maintained that any sub - group of NORP , such as young males in the north of the country , were being subjected to persecution for any Convention reason . It appears that the Secretary of ORG , while taking the view that neither NORP generally nor any group of NORP were being subjected to such persecution , also considered whether any individual applicant had been so subjected and decided that none of them had been . Consideration of what had happened in the past was material for the purpose of assessing the prospects for the future .

It was argued that the Secretary of ORG ’s decision letters did not clearly indicate that he had applied the ‘ real and substantial ORG test , but left it open that he might have applied a ‘ more likely than not’ test . But there is clearly to be gathered from what the Secretary of ORG has said that in his judgment there existed no real risk of persecution for a ORG reason . "

Lord PERSON : " In order for a ‘ fear’ of ‘ persecution’ to be ‘ well - founded’ there must exist a danger that if the claimant for refugee status is returned to his country of origin he will meet with persecution . The Convention does not enable the claimant to decide whether the danger of persecution exists . The Convention allows that decision to be taken by the country in which the claimant seeks asylum . Under the [ LAW of DATE applications for leave to enter GPE , including applications based on a claim to refugee status , are determined by the immigration authorities constituted by LAW . By the Rules made under LAW the appropriate authority to determine whether a claimant is a refugee is the Secretary of ORG . The task of the Secretary of ORG in the present proceedings was and is to determine in the case of each appellant whether the appellant will be in danger of persecution if he is sent back to GPE . Danger from persecution is obviously a matter of degree and judgment . The Secretary of ORG accepts that an appellant who fears persecution is entitled to asylum in this country unless the Secretary of ORG is satisfied that there is no real and substantial danger of persecution . The Secretary of ORG has concluded that there is no real and substantial danger of persecution ... In the present case an examination of the decision - making process does not disclose any error on the part of the Secretary of ORG or justify the court in contradicting his view that the applicants will not be in danger of persecution if they are returned to GPE . "

Lord PERSON of Chieveley : " First , I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend Lord PERSON , for the reasons given by him , that the requirement that the applicant ’s fear must be ‘ well founded’ means no more than that there has to be demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood of his persecution for a Convention reason ; indeed , I understand the submission of counsel for the Secretary of ORG , that there must be a real and substantial risk of persecution , to be consistent with that interpretation . Second , it is not to be forgotten that the Secretary of ORG has in any event an overriding discretion to depart from the immigration rules and admit an applicant for refugee status if he considers it just to do so . Third , I am with all respect unable to agree with the view expressed by Sir PERSON that different tests are applicable under Art . CARDINAL and Art . CARDINAL of the Convention ( see [ DATE ] Weekly Law Reports ( ORG at CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides as follows :

‘ No Contracting State shall expel or return ( " refouler " ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’

Sir PERSON suggested that , even if the Secretary of ORG decides that an applicant is a refugee as defined in Art . CARDINAL , nevertheless he has then to decide whether Art . CARDINAL , which involves an objective test , prohibits a return of the applicant to the relevant country . I am unable to accept this approach . It is , I consider , plain , as indeed was reinforced in argument by counsel for the [ ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ] with reference to the travaux préparatoires , that the non - refoulement provision in Art . CARDINAL was intended to apply to all persons determined to be refugees under Art . CARDINAL of the Convention . I can not help feeling , however , that the consistency between ORG . CARDINAL and DATE can be more easily accepted if the interpretation of well - founded fear in Art . CARDINAL ( A)(CARDINAL ) espoused by the Secretary of ORG is adopted rather than that contended for by the High Commissioner . "

Following this decision the solicitors acting on behalf of all CARDINAL applicants wrote to ORG indicating that they would be making further representations and that they would be applying to ORG seeking an indication under Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedure . They also sought ORG confirmation that no steps would be taken against their clients for DATE , which confirmation was given . The ORG refused the ORG request for an indication under Rule CARDINAL on DATE . Representations that they should not be removed were also made by ORG , ORG and a Member of ORG at the request of ORG GPE The Secretary of ORG considered that asylum candidates who failed to qualify for refugee status should be returned to GPE unless there were strong compassionate circumstances in any particular case . In the applicants’ case he did not consider that such compassionate circumstances existed .

Following the applicants’ removal to GPE their solicitors lodged an appeal against the asylum refusals to an Adjudicator in GPE , pursuant to LAW DATE . They filed voluminous documentary material concerning the past and present situation for NORP in GPE . None of this material was challenged by the Secretary of ORG ’s representatives and no other material upon which the latter based his decisions to refuse asylum was put before the Adjudicator . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Adjudicator accepted the ORG claim that they had left GPE for fear that as young NORP they were at risk of , inter alia , " interrogation , detention and even physical harm " . He largely believed the accounts given by the applicants of their personal situations :

- as regards the first applicant , the raid on the family business , the death of his cousin , his arrests and detention in DATE and later , on his return to GPE , his interrogation by the police ( but not his claim to membership of ORG ) ;

- as regards the second applicant , his family situation , the alleged detention and assault , destruction of his home and , on his return to GPE , his arrest and ill - treatment in GPE ;

- as regards the third applicant , his arrests , interrogations and death of his brother ( but not his claim to membership of the NORP ) ;

- as regards the fourth applicant , the destruction of his family home by shelling , the incidents he witnessed and , on his return to GPE , his detention several times due to his lack of an identity card ;

- as regards the fifth applicant , the arson of his home , the shooting dead of CARDINAL of his brothers and , after his return to GPE , the arrest of his family and relatives .

The Adjudicator also accepted that in general the victims of ill - treatment at the hands of NORP forces had been young male NORP and that excessive force had been used against non - combatants in the LOC by both NORP armed forces and the ORG afterwards .

Finally he concluded that the applicants had had a well - founded fear of persecution and he held , inter alia , as follows :

( CARDINAL ) that they were all entitled to asylum at the time of the Secretary of ORG ’s decision ;

( CARDINAL ) that the circumstances since that time had not materially changed ;

( CARDINAL ) that the Secretary of ORG ’s decisions in respect of all the applicants were not in accordance with the law ;

( CARDINAL ) that the applicants’ appeals were accordingly allowed ; and

( CARDINAL ) that they should be returned to GPE with the minimum of delay .

The Secretary of ORG ’s appeal to ORG was rejected on DATE as being out of time , the DATE time - limit for lodging appeals having been missed due to an administrative error . On CARDINAL DATE the Secretary of ORG applied for judicial review of the Tribunal and Adjudicator ’s decisions . In particular he challenged the lawfulness or reasonableness of the directions that the applicants be returned to GPE .

Leave for judicial review was granted by Mr Justice PERSON on CARDINAL DATE and the case was heard on DATE by Lord Justice Lloyd and Mr Justice Auld . ORG upheld the decision of ORG . On DATE the Secretary of ORG applied for a stay of execution against the return of the CARDINAL applicants pending a possible appeal against the refusal of judicial review . This application was rejected on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the Secretary of ORG against the finding by Mr Justice Auld in the above proceedings that PERSON and PERSON were entitled to raise their asylum claim on appeal to the Adjudicator notwithstanding the fact that they had first presented forged NORP passports and sought leave to enter as visitors ( NORP v. ORG and Another , ex parte Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] I Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

GPE has a population of CARDINAL , of which PERCENT are NORP and PERCENT are ORG . The NORP are concentrated in particular areas , and in the northern peninsula of GPE account for PERCENT of the population . The history of the ethnic conflict between NORP and NORP goes back for generations , with NORP , anti - Tamil chauvinism being a major factor in GPE politics since DATE . CARDINAL result of the anti - Tamil sentiment in GPE has been a series of pogroms against NORP communities , particularly since DATE , and which increased dramatically in DATE , triggered off by the killing of CARDINAL GPE soldiers by a NORP liberation group . A state of emergency was proclaimed which is still in force . This resulted in considerable governmental violence against the NORP community , including organised massacres tolerated , if not approved of , by the Government .

Following an Accord which was signed between GPE and GPE on CARDINAL DATE ORG entered NORP areas with a view to protecting the NORP community and the NORP forces were to be returned to barracks . However , the IPKF became involved in fighting GPE extremists who rejected the Accord . Incidents of arrest , arbitrary detention , torture and destruction were reported , especially in DATE and DATE , with indiscriminate shelling and shooting in villages and towns in the north . There was a siege of GPE town during which it was estimated that CARDINAL civilians were killed by the ORG with a high level of atrocities committed during the assault on the town and thereafter . Identity cards were indispensable for NORP at this time , not only a GPE identity card , but also a card issued by the IPKF for anyone in the north , in order to avoid the risk of summary detention .

When the applicants were returned to GPE in DATE reports of civil disturbance were still rife . The respondent Government analysed the situation as follows : they accepted that there was widespread disruption and violence , particularly in the north and east of GPE , although large parts of the country remained quiet . The disturbances seem to have eased off in DATE . Having regard to the DATE Accord they considered that LOC and ORG were firmly committed to the restoration of law and order , civil rights for all communities and the democratic election of regional representatives . They were also aware of the voluntary repatriation of a large number of GPE NORP , mostly having taken refuge in GPE , under a scheme organised by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( " ORG " ) in response to provisions in the Accord to this effect .

DATE . Under the ORG scheme which was begun in DATE , CARDINAL NORP had been repatriated by CARDINAL DATE . By DATE the total number of NORP voluntarily repatriated under this scheme was CARDINAL . The ORG has estimated that a further CARDINAL had made their own arrangements to return voluntarily to GPE by DATE . Some NORP countries were also beginning to send NORP back to GPE during the period DATE ( e.g. the GPE and GPE ) . Other countries had a policy of not returning NORP asylum - seekers at this time ( e.g. GPE and GPE ) .

In DATE ORG , ORG and the ORG each urged the respondent Government not to send any NORP back to GPE in view of the instability at that time , the uncertain effect of the July Accord and reports of human rights violations by both the NORP security forces and the IPKF .

DATE . A report by ORG of ORG dated DATE noted that there was widespread devastation of property as well as food and health problems . Although the situation had slightly eased since DATE , the view was maintained that the whole of the majority NORP areas was subject to guerilla attack , and counter - attack by the ORG , and that little resembling normal life was possible .

The information available to the Secretary of ORG about the situation in GPE came from numerous sources , including reporting telegrams from ORG in GPE and advice from ORG , information and documentary evidence from CARDINAL of asylum applicants from GPE , frequent contact with representatives of ORG , press articles , journals and reports from organisations like ORG directly concerned with the situation in GPE . ORG also supplied information derived from diplomatic representatives about developments in GPE .

In addition , Mr PERSON , Minister of ORG at ORG , visited GPE from DATE . He was accompanied by the most senior official in ORG , who had overall responsibility for asylum policy as well as the Head of ORG in ORG . In the course of his visit he met President PERSON and other government Ministers . He visited GPE and PERSON , meeting local officials , members of ORG , citizens , committees and representatives of the NORP .

Special provision is made for the position of refugees and for those seeking asylum in GPE in the " Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules " , ORG paper CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( " the CARDINAL Rules " ) . Paragraph CARDINAL of the Rules provides as follows :

" Where a person is a refugee full account is to be taken of the provisions of the LAW relating to LAW . DATE and PERSON . DATE ) . Nothing in these Rules is to be construed as requiring action contrary to GPE obligations under these instruments . "

An application for asylum can be made by a person either on arrival at a port in GPE or after entering the country . If the application is made on arrival , it is , by virtue of section PERSON ) of LAW DATE ( " LAW " ) , dealt with by an immigration officer in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Rules , which reads as follows :

" Special considerations arise where the only country to which a person could be removed is one to which he is unwilling to go owing to well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion . Any case in which it appears to the immigration officer as a result of a claim or information given by the person seeking entry at a port that he might fall within the terms of this provision is to be referred to ORG for decision regardless of any grounds set out in any provision of these Rules which may appear to justify refusal of leave to enter . Leave to enter will not be refused if removal would be contrary to the provisions of LAW relating to ORG . "

In cases to which paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Rules applies , an immigration officer at the port of entry will , with the aid , if necessary , of an interpreter , interview the passenger . Immigration officers are trained in asylum matters as part of their general training . A recent development has been the involvement of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees in this training . The matter is then , in pursuance of paragraph CARDINAL of the Rules , referred to the specialist ORG . No decision on an asylum application is taken by an immigration officer at the port .

The specialist ORG has a large staff , who are divided into geographical sections under CARDINAL ORG responsible for LOC , LOC , LOC and LOC / the LOC . There is also a ORG which collates and disseminates background information on specific countries . An application is considered initially by an Executive Officer in the appropriate geographical section . It is then assessed with a recommendation to a Higher Executive Officer . He or she may decide to grant asylum or exceptional leave to enter ; a decision to refuse outright must be taken at at least Senior Executive level . Cases which are complex or about which an officer has particular doubts can be referred up to higher grade officers and , as in the ORG cases , to a Minister for decision .

These arrangements are subject to the referral arrangements with ORG described below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Where in any case referred to ORG officials feel unable to grant an application following representations from ORG against refusal , the case will be referred to a Minister for decision and ORG will be informed of the issues to be put before the Minister .

DATE . If an application for asylum is refused before leave to enter GPE is given there is a right of appeal on the merits against that refusal CARDINAL of LAW to the appellate authorities set up under Part II of that LAW " the appellate authorities " ) , but such right may in general only be exercised from outside GPE . However , the refusal of asylum can also be challenged in judicial review proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

Appeals under LAW in the first instance are to an Adjudicator , who is a single judge , appointed by the Lord Chancellor . From there appeals lie , usually with leave , to a CARDINAL - person ORG . Members of the ORG are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and need not have legal qualifications , although a lawyer must preside at sittings .

By virtue of section CARDINAL of LAW , where directions are given for a person ’s removal from GPE on his being refused leave to enter , he may appeal to an Adjudicator against the directions on the ground that he ought to be removed ( if at all ) to a different country or territory . It is for the person concerned to find another country which will accept him .

The procedure for determining an appeal by an asylum seeker against a refusal of leave to enter is governed by ORG DATE ( ORG , DATE ) .

An appellant can be represented at the appeal by ORG which is funded by the Secretary of ORG under LAW of LAW for the purpose of enabling it to give free advice and assistance to those with appeal rights under LAW . Alternatively , an appellant can be represented by solicitors . Provision is made in the CARDINAL Rules for the submission of an explanatory statement by the Government ( rule CARDINAL) ; for the appellate authority to require the furnishing of particulars ( rule CARDINAL ) ; for the summoning of witnesses ( rule CARDINAL ) ; for each party to the appeal to be heard ( rule CARDINAL ) ; for the receiving of oral , written or other evidence ( rule CARDINAL ) ; and for the inspection of documentary evidence ( rule CARDINAL ) .

No provision is made in LAW for an appellant to return to GPE to attend his appeal , but his representations may be submitted in writing or through his representative . The appellant may seek an expedited hearing from the appellate authorities . If the appeal is successful , the Adjudicator under section CARDINAL of LAW , or the ORG LAW , shall make such directions for giving effect to the determination as is necessary . In the case of a successful appeal from abroad by an asylum seeker the direction may require the entry clearance officer to grant the necessary entry clearance to enable the appellant to return to GPE . Either party may appeal the ORG determination to ORG . In addition , the ORG ’s determination can be challenged by judicial review and legal aid is available , if necessary , for this purpose .

The question whether an application for asylum in GPE should be granted is one for the determination of the Secretary of ORG , subject to the above - mentioned statutory right of appeal on the merits . The courts ( as opposed to the appellate authorities under LAW ) have no power to determine whether a person is a refugee . However , the decision of the Secretary of ORG is subject to judicial review and may be quashed on a variety of grounds . Leave to apply for judicial review may be obtained at short notice and legal aid may be available to any person regardless of nationality .

The courts will examine whether the ORG Secretary has correctly interpreted the law in relation to the grant or refusal of asylum . If the courts are satisfied that he has made no error of law they may nevertheless review the refusal of asylum in the light of the " ORG principles " ( ORG v. ORG [ DATE ] I Kings Bench CARDINAL ) , namely , an examination of the exercise of discretion by the Secretary of ORG to determine whether he left out of account a factor that should have been taken into account or took into account a factor he should have ignored , or whether he came to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it . The applicants , on the other hand , contest the scope of judicial control of the merits of the Secretary of ORG ’s decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The extent and effect of judicial review was demonstrated by ORG in the PERSON case ( NORP v. Home Secretary , ex parte PERSON and Others [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL ) when it was held that the ORG Secretary had indeed failed to appreciate a factor which he should have specifically dealt with . Lord PERSON stated ( at CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) :

" ... all questions of fact on which the discretionary decision whether to grant or withhold leave to enter or remain depends must necessarily be determined by ORG or the Secretary of ORG ... The question whether an applicant for leave to enter or remain is or is not a refugee is only one , even if a particularly important one ... of a multiplicity of questions which immigration officers and officials of ORG acting for the Secretary of ORG must DATE determine ... determination of such questions is only open to challenge in the courts on well - known ORG principles ... there is no ground for treating the question raised by a claim to refugee status as an exception to this rule ...

Within those limitations the court must , I think , be entitled to subject an administrative decision to the more rigorous examination to ensure that it is in no way flawed , according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines . The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual ’s right to life and when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant ’s life at risk , the basis of the decision must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny . "

Lord PERSON added ( at page CARDINAL ) :

" In my opinion where the result of a flawed decision may imperil life or liberty a special responsibility lies on the court in the examination of the decision making process . "

In that case , following a careful review of the evidence the ORG quashed the removal orders in regard to CARDINAL of the applicants on the ground that relevant facts had not been taken into account .

The Secretary of ORG ’s refusal of asylum was also quashed by the courts following judicial review proceedings in R v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte ORG ( ORG decision of DATE ) , NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte PERSON ( ORG decision of DATE ) , and ORG v. Secretary of ORG ( [ DATE ] ORG ) . In the NORP case the court reviewed the decision of the Secretary of ORG on " ORG principles " . In his judgment , Mr Justice PERSON said " I am ... disturbed by some of the factors which do seem to have been taken into account and others which have not . It is , therefore , necessary to look at the respondent ’s evidence in some detail " . He concluded that the Secretary of ORG ’s rejection of the claim for asylum should be quashed on the ground that " in reaching his decision he took into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account and failed to take into account matters he should " . A similar approach was adopted by ORG in the PERSON case . In the ORG case it was more a matter of the fairness of the procedures followed in reaching the decision to refuse political asylum in that ORG held that the applicant was given insufficient opportunity to give her explanation of the facts taken into account by the Secretary of ORG in assessing her credibility . In his judgment , with which the other CARDINAL judges agreed , Lord Justice May stressed that " in these refugee asylum cases the court is entitled to , and should , subject administrative decisions to rigorous examination . The court should ensure that the decision- making process has been wholly fair throughout " .

Although the Home Secretary has stated that there can be no expectation that asylum seekers will automatically be allowed to stay in GPE until proceedings are complete , the practice is that no applicant is removed once he has obtained leave to apply for judicial review . Moreover , in NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte ORG ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG Reports CARDINAL ) ORG held that a judicial review court has power to order a stay even where such an order would have the effect of restraining the ORG .

If an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused a renewed application can be made to ORG . Even where , after a full hearing , an application for judicial review is dismissed the applicant can appeal on a point of law to ORG as of right and , subsequently , to ORG with the leave of ORG or ORG .

Since DATE where an asylum seeker is otherwise unrepresented , his case may be referred to the ORG subsidised GPE Advisory Service ( ORG ) for advice or other welfare services . In such cases the ORG regards ORG as the agent of the ORG .

Since DATE ( i.e. after the applicants’ removal ) no category of asylum seeker is automatically excluded from the referral system although the Home Secretary retains the right at all times not to refer a case . Where a person can be sent to a third country where he does not fear persecution , ORG will be telephoned to establish whether they wish to interview that person , in which case DATE will be allowed for this to be done and representations made . Where an unrepresented person is likely to be sent back to a country where he claims to fear persecution , if ORG proposes to refuse the asylum application it will refer the case to ORG who will have DATE ( for those in detention ) or DATE ( for those not detained ) to make representations . The Secretary of ORG is obliged to consider and answer any representations made . The representations and the response to them may then be used as material against which the reasons and conclusions of the decisions taken may be tested on review , if asylum is refused .

Members of ORG frequently make representations to the Minister about unsuccessful asylum seekers or other expulsion cases . The first guidelines on the subject were issued in DATE . Prior to DATE a mere telephone contact could stop a removal pending further representations being made . On DATE the ORG Secretary announced that Members of ORG could no longer assume that " stops " would be accepted in all cases . Under revised guidelines for handling representations from Members which came into force on DATE removal may be deferred for DATE to enable representations to be made if new and compelling evidence has become available which has not already been taken into account .

The power to give or refuse leave to enter and to remain in GPE , in a case of a person not having refugee status under LAW , is exercisable at the discretion of the Secretary of ORG . Accordingly , if a person entering GPE is found not to be entitled to have refugee status , but nevertheless alleges that if he is returned to his own country he runs a real risk of being subjected to treatment inconsistent with the provisions of LAW ) of ORG , the Secretary of ORG , in the exercise of his discretion , could decide that exceptional leave to enter should be given . This entitles an asylum seeker to remain in GPE for a period of DATE in the first instance .

In DATE PERCENT of decisions in asylum cases were to give exceptional leave , usually on humanitarian grounds , and in PERCENT of the cases the entitlement to refugee status was accepted . PERCENT were outright refusals . In DATE CARDINAL NORP were given exceptional leave .