Cheurfa v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The absence of a Refugee Convention ground does not automatically prevent a claim under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, where the alleged threat comes from a non-state group, a finding that the authorities provide sufficient protection in the proposed destination means that return there does not create an Article 3 risk on that factual basis. An appellate court will not re-try such factual findings on a permission application. A decision about whether relocation to an Algerian city would be unduly harsh is not authority that Algiers is unsafe.

The applicant, an Algerian citizen and former Post Office employee, claimed that he had been threatened by the GIA and would face persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment if returned to Algeria. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal found that there was sufficient protection in Algiers, that the violence was principally confined to rural areas, and that no Refugee Convention ground was established. It dismissed the asylum and human rights claims and refused permission to appeal. On a renewed application, the Court of Appeal considered whether it was reasonably arguable that the Tribunal had been unable to find that the applicant faced no Article 3 risk merely because his claim lacked a Refugee Convention ground.

1. Application dismissed. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal because it was not reasonably arguable that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was not entitled to reach its factual conclusions.
2. The court accepted the general legal possibility that removal may breach Article 3 even where the treatment feared has no Refugee Convention nexus. The absence of a Convention ground does not, by itself, dispose of an Article 3 claim. That issue did not determine this application, however, because of the Tribunal’s factual findings.
3. The Tribunal had found that the applicant came from Algiers and that there was a sufficiency of protection there from the GIA. On that finding, the alleged risk from the GIA could not establish a breach of Article 3 by returning the applicant to Algiers. The same finding also disposed of the Refugee Convention claim.
4. The court was not a fact-finding tribunal. The report relied on by the applicant addressed problems in parts of Algeria but contained no adverse reference to Algiers. The applicant therefore had no realistic basis for challenging the Tribunal’s findings.
5. The decision in Mardi [2002] UK IAT 01327 did not establish that Algiers was unsafe. That decision concerned whether it would be unduly harsh to expect an appellant who had left Algiers for a rural area to relocate to a city. It was not authority for the proposition advanced in this case.
6. The Tribunal’s wording, including its use of “therefore” and the statement that the applicant was of no interest to the authorities, was imperfect. Read as a whole, however, the decision made the necessary finding about sufficient protection. The application was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 9 April 2003, the renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: On 3 October 2002, the Tribunal dismissed the asylum and human rights claims and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.