European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Jama Muhumad HUSSAIN v the United Kingdom - 7028/07 [2010] ECHR 2210 (14 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2210.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2210
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
7028/07
by Jama Muhumad HUSSAIN
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Ljiljana
Mijović,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 2007,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jama Hussain, is a Somali national who was born in 1987 and is currently in detention in an Immigration Detention Centre in West Drayton.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 19 December 2005 and claimed asylum on arrival on the basis that he was a member of the Ashraf minority clan.
On 16 February 2006 the Home Secretary dismissed his asylum claim as his account of events was not accepted or believed. In particular, it was not accepted that he was a member of a minority clan.
On 11 April 2006 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”) dismissed his appeal, finding that his account was not credible and could not be believed.
On 28 April 2006 the AIT dismissed an application for reconsideration of its previous decision. A Senior Immigration judge found that that decision was reached after careful consideration of all the evidence submitted by the applicant and on the basis that the latter’s account was not credible. The decision was clearly reasoned and the grounds of appeal disclosed no error of law in the determination.
On 3 November 2006 the Home Secretary declined to treat the applicant’s further representations as a fresh asylum application. Thus, the Secretary of State issued removal directions for the applicant’s return to Somalia via Nairobi on 15 November 2006.
On 14 November 2006 the High Court refused to grant the applicant interim relief against his proposed removal. On 15 November 2006 the High Court refused to reconsider its rejection of interim relief as there was no evidence to support the claim that asylum seekers returned to Mogadishu would face systematic persecution. There was no error of law in the rejection of the applicant’s further representations or in the removal directions.
The applicant’s removal was deferred twice as he became disruptive at the airport at the point of embarkation.
On 17 January 2007 the Home Secretary dismissed the applicant’s further representations which were intended to amount to a fresh asylum claim. The applicant’s removal to Somalia (Mogadishu) was set for 14 February 2007. He introduced his application with this Court on 13 February 2007 and applied for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to halt his removal. The interim measure was granted on 23 February 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Somalia would expose him to a substantial risk of ill-treatment as he had no family or access to majority clan protection there. He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his removal would constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his family and/or private life established in the United Kingdom.
THE LAW
By letter dated 1 September 2010 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted three years’ discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. As it was understood that the applicant had a wife and children in the United Kingdom, the applicant would be eligible to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain on the expiry of his discretionary leave in December 2012.
On 3 September 2010 the Court wrote to the applicant’s representative to ask whether or not he consented to the application being struck out on the ground that he had been granted discretionary leave to remain. The applicant’s representative did not reply to that letter.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş Aracı Ljiljana
Mijović
Deputy Registrar President
