Amiri, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE JAY
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Gulrahman Amiri's judicial review application challenged the refusal of his British citizenship application due to his past involvement with the Taliban's Vice and Virtue Department. The court upheld the refusal, concluding that the Defendant was justified in having serious doubts about Amiri's good character, based on evidence and reasonable inferences that he aided or assisted in crimes against humanity.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE JAY:
Introduction
This is an Application for Judicial Review of the Defendant's decision given on 6th November 2013 refusing the Claimant's application under Section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to be naturalised as a British citizen.
Essential Factual Background
The Claimant, Mr Gulrahman Amiri, was born in Afghanistan on 5th October 1982. He probably arrived in the United Kingdom on 25th August 2004, and he claimed asylum the following day. The Defendant refused that Application, and on 5th October 2004 she decided to remove him to Afghanistan. The Claimant's appeal was heard before the Adjudicator, Mr Kopieczek, on 16th December 2004, and was allowed. The basis of the claim for asylum was that the Claimant joined the Taliban as a member of the Religious Police, and served in that capacity between 1996 and 2001.
The Claimant's evidence before the Adjudicator was that, although he acted as a bodyguard, he was never involved in fighting for the Taliban. However, the Claimant said that he was involved in the Taliban in the Amri-Bilmaroof "where he targeted the general public for such things as controlling beards and other virtues" (see paragraph 14 of the Adjudicator's Determination).
The Adjudicator found that the Claimant had given a generally consistent account which was also consistent with the country background material. He accepted that the Claimant was a member of the Taliban in the Vice and Virtue Department. The Adjudicator concluded that the Claimant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Afghanistan on account of his and his family's involvement with the Taliban, for a Convention reason, namely his imputed political opinions. The Adjudicator also allowed the appeal on similar human rights grounds.
The way the Secretary of State presented her case before the Adjudicator was to seek to persuade the AIT that the Claimant's involvement in the Taliban was at a very low level. The Defendant did not seek to say that the Claimant had been involved in the perpetration of crimes against humanity such that he should fall within one of the exceptions to the Refugee Convention. In reality, it seems to me that the Defendant's choice was binary; it would have been difficult to run both cases simultaneously. However, subject to considerations of overall fairness, I see no reason why the Defendant could not approach the matter in a different way when it came to the application for a Naturalisation Certificate.
On 2