England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No. AA/05505/2007]

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		28th April 2009

Lord Justice Sullivan:

1. This is an application for permission to appeal against the determination of Senior Immigration Judge Gill. I had ordered reconsideration of the appellant's appeal. Senior Immigration Judge Gill carried out that reconsideration. She concluded that the appellant had not established that she had left Eritrea illegally. At the hearing the appellant's advocate Ms Quinn mentioned that the Court of Appeal was going to hear an appeal in a case called GM (Eritrea) v SSHD (and conjoined appeals) [2008] EWCA (Civ) 833. The Court of Appeal's judgment in GM is dated 17 July 2008. We have very carefully considered the Court of Appeal's decision in GM and we are quite satisfied that it means that this appeal must be dismissed.
2. That is because one of the appellants in GM was a 17 year-old girl and although the social services assessment of this appellant's age is 18 years, her case is indistinguishable from the case of MY, the 17 year-old woman in the GM case. She had not been believed by the Immigration Judge as to her account of leaving Eritrea and the court considered whether, considering the objective evidence alone, it could be assumed that she had left Eritrea illegally. The majority of the judges concluded that the answer to that was no. This appellant's case is no different and so it follows that her appeal must be dismissed.
3. I would add this, though. At the reconsideration hearing before Senior Immigration Judge Gill, the appellant did not produce any more evidence as to the circumstances in which she left Eritrea. If the appellant has any evidence that would support her case that she left Eritrea illegally, then she should send it to the Secretary of State. That evidence could be in the form of a statement from herself. The Secretary of State would have to consider whether that fresh evidence amounts to a new claim. So the appellant will have an opportunity to explain why she should not go back to Eritrea, even though we have dismissed her appeal.

Order: Application refused.

.