UKIAT 00059 N (Vietnam)
Heard at : Field House
Written Determination Promulgated
on : 1 April 2003
Determination given orally in Court
"I am unimpressed with the grounds of appeal. In particular, I see nothing to support the assertions made in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the grounds nor is there any reason to disturb the Adjudicator's findings in relation to credibility or the Refugee Convention. It is, however, possibly arguable that, in the particular circumstances of this case, further consideration should be given to the human rights appeal. Leave to appeal is granted pursuant to Rule 18(7)(b) of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000, limited to the human rights appeal".
"… I have taken into account the letter from his GP indicating that after his asylum application was rejected the appellant has, inter alia, been feeling low and has experienced a loss of appetite. I have also considered the report prepared by the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust which expresses the opinion that these symptoms of depression displayed by the appellant are likely to have been triggered by the refusal of his asylum application. It also says that there is no evidence that the appellant is suffering from any Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The appellant is a minor who has been separated from his family and, given his pending asylum appeal, he does not know what his future holds. I accept that the experience has been difficult for the appellant and this is reflected in the medical evidence before me. However, the evidence before me does not indicate that his psychological condition is of the minimum level of severity that would breach Article 3 if the appellant is returned. The medical evidence also does not support a finding that his return would be disproportionate under Article 8".
"I note that the appellant is staying with a foster family and that he is attending a language course at Croydon College. No doubt, his relationship with his foster family and other relationships he may have formed here, as well as his course of studies, will be disrupted if the appellant is returned. However, in the circumstances of this case I am unable to find that that makes his return disproportionate to the objectives of immigration control legitimately exercised by the UK. I also note that at the very least his grandmother remains in Vietnam. The appellant lived with his grandmother for a number of years after his mother passed away, and by his own evidence, she has been willing to care and accommodate him after his father was detained, and I find it likely that she would be willing to do so again. For the foregoing reasons I am unable to find that returning the appellant to Vietnam would give rise to a real risk of Article 8 being breached".