FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 7935/09
by B.S. and 232 other applications
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms B.S. is an Iranian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Cardiff. She was represented before the Court by Duncan Moghal Solicitors, Newport. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms H. Upton and Mr M. Kuzmicki of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant travelled overland from Iran through Turkey and spent a week in Anatolia, trying to board a ship to Italy. She eventually managed to board a boat, and describes a situation of extreme overcrowding, filthy conditions, little food or water and violence between the crew of the ship and the other passengers. The ship appears to have broken down or been intercepted and put into port in Greece on or around 11 November 2007, where the applicant and her son, together with the other passengers were taken to hospital. She claims that around 200 of those persons also rescued from her boat were returned to their countries of origin. The applicant and her son were in hospital for seven days before being transferred to a camp. During their stay in this camp the applicant made contact with a solicitor who promised to obtain her release in exchange for the sum of 300 Euros. He gave her papers to sign and took her to be fingerprinted. They were subsequently transferred to a different camp in Athens on 23 November 2007. Here, the applicant was approached by an agent, whom she refers to as “mafia”, and who offered to help her. Instead, he took her and her son to his house, where he kept them for several weeks and subjected the applicant to physical and sexual abuse. The agent, Bajar Abdulla, was arrested in connection with people trafficking and smuggling, and it appears that the applicant was forced by his associates, by means of threats to her son, whom they had taken away from the applicant, to testify at his trial. Following the trial, she was taken elsewhere by the associates and kept as an unpaid servant, and subjected to continual threats and abuse. The applicant managed to run away on or around 12 February 2008. She eventually managed to travel over the border to Italy concealed in a truck, and from Italy travelled overland to the United Kingdom (UK), hidden in a series of vehicles.
The applicant arrived in the UK on 31 March 2008 and claimed asylum on 15 April 2008. Her asylum claim was refused and certified on third country grounds on 31 October 2008, after a EURODAC search indicated that she had previously claimed asylum in Greece.
The applicant’s representatives made representations on her behalf dated 6 August 2008, which stated that the applicant’s removal to Greece would seriously compromise her mental health and possibly result in her suicide. The Home Office responded by letter dated 1 September 2008, in which it stated that depression was a widely recognised illness for which treatment was available internationally, including within Greece. It was also noted that Greece was bound by Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, which laid out minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, including immediate access to free healthcare where required. It was not therefore accepted that the applicant’s removal to Greece would put the United Kingdom in breach of its Convention obligations. The applicant’s asylum claim was also certified as clearly unfounded, meaning that she had no right of appeal against the refusal of asylum from within the United Kingdom.
Ms Julie Morgan, the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the applicant currently resides, contacted the then Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr Byrne), on behalf of the applicant on 19 September 2008. She expressed her concern about the potential return of the applicant to Greece given her recurrent depressive disorder and severe post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and her fears for the applicant’s son should he be removed from his current stable environment, particularly given his mother’s mental state.
On 22 September 2008, the applicant’s representatives again made representations to the Home Office regarding the applicant’s state of health, and the fact that Norway had halted returns to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation (Council Regulation 343/2003/EC) as a result inter alia of the concerns raised by UNHCR. The Home Office responded on the same day, pointing out that the United Kingdom had legislation in place which required it to treat Greece as a country to which persons could be safely removed without fear that they would be persecuted. It was also noted that the applicant’s medical issues had already been dealt with in the letter dated 1 September 2008.
The new Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr Woolas), responded to Ms Morgan by letter dated 26 November 2008, acknowledging that he was aware of criticisms of Greek asylum practices and procedures made by the UNHCR and others, but stating that there were mental health facilities and psychiatric treatment available in Greece, provided by the national health care service, from which the applicant could benefit. He also stated that the Greek authorities would be made aware of the applicant’s medical needs in advance of her return, in order that arrangements for her reception could be made.
The applicant has submitted medical evidence from more than one source which indicates that she is suffering from significant symptoms of PTSD. It appears that this has resulted from her treatment in Greece. Her depression dates from her time in Iran, where she lost a baby at the age of sixteen.
On 20 December 2008, the applicant lodged an application before this Court and requested an interim measure to prevent her expulsion. The applicant and her son were taken into immigration detention on 31 March 2009, pending their removal to Greece which was set for 3 April 2009. On 2 April 2009, the Acting President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicated to the Government of the United Kingdom that the applicant should not be expelled until further notice. The applicant and her son were released from immigration detention following the application of Rule 39 by the Court.
B. Rule 39 indications in respect of other applicants
In the course of the Court’s consideration of this case and other cases involving applicants who lodged applications challenging their return to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation, the Acting President of the Section has applied Rule 39 in another 232 cases against the United Kingdom. Those applications are set out in the annex to this decision.
C. Subsequent developments
On 23 September 2010, after the parties’ observations had been received in the B.S. case, the Agent of the Government wrote to the Court to set out the Government’s approach to handling claims for asylum made by individuals in circumstances where, pursuant to the terms of the Dublin II Regulation, their claims fell to be considered substantively in Greece. The letter stated:
“As of 16 September 2010, and until further notice, the UK government has decided that it will not seek to remove any such persons to Greece, notwithstanding that Greece is the member state responsible for dealing substantively with their asylum claim.
This decision has been made on pragmatic grounds (explained further below) and does not represent an admission with respect to any individual, or generally, that removal to Greece would be other than entirely lawful and in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation. Moreover, and for the avoidance of doubt, it remains the position of the UK government that removal of persons to Greece generally pursuant to the terms of the Dublin II Regulation is in accordance with all of the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law and in particular complies with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The Court may be aware that the lead domestic case of Saeedi raises issues relating to the removal of asylum applicants to Greece under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation. Although the applicant’s claim was dismissed by the High Court, the Claimant has now appealed to the Court of Appeal where the case is known as NS v SSHD & Others (C4/2010/0943).
On 12 July 2010 the Court of Appeal decided that in order to resolve the issues raised in NS v SSHD it was necessary for a preliminary reference to be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Court of Appeal has therefore referred several questions to the CJEU for decision and NS v SSHD has been stayed pending a ruling on those questions.
Unfortunately, an inevitable side-effect of this has been a large and growing number of cases raising issues similar to those in NS v SSHD which have also been stayed pending the decision in the lead case. Estimates of the time likely to be required for the CJEU to rule on the preliminary reference range from 3 months (if the court agrees to consider the case under an accelerated process) to 17 months (if not). It will then be necessary for the Court of Appeal to conduct a hearing and to decide the case in light of the CJEU ruling. In the meantime a growing backlog of unresolved applications for permission to seek judicial review is building up, at a considerable cost to the UK Borders Agency and thus to the taxpayer.
It is in those circumstances and for those pragmatic reasons that the decision to suspend removals to Greece and to decide both existing and new cases substantively has been made. For the avoidance of doubt, the UK government intends to continue to resist the judicial review application in the lead case of NS v SSHD before the CJEU. The Claimant in NS v SSHD will not be removed pending the final resolution of his judicial review claim but neither will his claim for asylum be considered substantively.
There are currently approximately 400 cases which have been stayed pending the judgment of the Court of Appeal in NS v SSHD. Given the changed circumstances it is the UK government’s intention to proceed with substantive consideration of the asylum claims in those existing cases, rendering the applicants’ current challenges to their removal to Greece for substantive consideration of their claims academic.
The UK government’s current intention is that the temporary change will also apply to new Greek asylum cases received in the future until the CJEU has given its ruling and the Court of Appeal has delivered final judgment. However, this remains subject to review and the Secretary of State reserves the right to reinstate removals in respect of new cases at any time (including at any time before the Court of Appeal judgment). The policy will, in any event, be reviewed once the Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment.
In the circumstances I would be extremely grateful if the Court could lift the Rule 39 indications in respect of the applicant’s [sic] affected by the above announcement or at least clarify that the Rule 39 indications do not prevent removal of the applicants to a country other than Greece.”
In a letter sent the same day, the Section Registrar replied:
“In response to your request that the Court lift these Rule 39 indications and your further request for clarification that the Rule 39 indications do not prevent removal to a country other than Greece, I am instructed to seek the following initial clarifications from your Government:
- Is the substantive examination of these cases which your Government now proposes to undertake to be carried out pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Dublin Regulation?;
- Will those applicants who are refused asylum by the Secretary of State, be given a right of appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision?
- Does the reference in the final paragraph of your letter to ‘a country other than Greece’ refer to applicants’ countries of origin or other Dublin regulation states?”
The Agent’s response, dated 27 September 2010, provided as follows:
“(a) In short the answer is yes;
(b) Technically, there is no right to appeal against a decision to refuse asylum per se because it is not an immigration decision, which triggers a right of appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘NIAA 2002’). However UKBA will, when refusing asylum, make a decision to remove at the same time and that decision will trigger an appeal right under section 82(2) of the NIAA 2002. At this appeal the applicant can raise both asylum and human rights grounds to argue that they should not be removed from the UK. The only circumstance in which there is a separate right of appeal against a decision to refuse asylum, is where asylum is refused but the applicant has at the same time been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year (or for periods exceeding one year in aggregate);
(c) Until all the cases have been reviewed the UK Government cannot state with certainty which country each applicant will be returned to if their asylum/human rights claim is unsuccessful. Whilst it is expected that we will generally be returning people to their country of origin, there may be cases where another Dublin state may become responsible (for example, in family reunion cases under Article 15 of the Dublin II Regulation) or, indeed, where the person is able to be removed to another safe country (for example, if they are a dual national).
In any event the UK Government would like to make clear to the Court that prior to any proposed removal an applicant will be able to seek a Rule 39 indication against return to another country.”
In a further letter of 28 September 2010, the Section Registrar informed the Government of the following:
“The Section has now considered the terms of your letter, and your previous letter of 23 September 2010 requesting that it lift Rule 39 in respect of those applicants whom your Government initially sought to return to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation and your further request for clarification that the Rule 39 indications did not prevent removal to countries other than Greece.
I am instructed to inform you that the Section is prepared to lift Rule 39 on the understanding that:
(1) No action will be taken to remove any applicant to Greece without prior notice to the Court;
(2) No removal action will be taken in respect of an applicant who has previously sought and received a Rule 39 indication to prevent his or her removal to Greece before that applicant has been sent a letter by the Registry informing him or her of the decision to lift Rule 39 in his or her case;
(3) All current and future Greek asylum cases (that is, cases where Greece would ordinarily be the Member State responsible under the Dublin II Regulation) will be examined by your Government under Article 3(2) of the Regulation; and
(4) All current and future Greek asylum cases will have access to the full range of appeal rights granted by your Government under the same conditions as other, non-Dublin II Regulation asylum seekers, including a reasonable opportunity to lodge an application to this Court and to seek interim measures under Rule 39.
...
In addition, since the Section will continue to apply Rule 39 in respect of returns by your Government to Mogadishu, I should be grateful it you would confirm that no action will be taken to remove any applicant who was previously to be returned to Greece to Mogadishu without the aforementioned prior notice to the Court.”
Finally, in a letter dated 4 October 2010, the Agent of the Government stated:
“I am replying to your letter of 28 September 2010 wherein you ask for confirmation of a number of matters in relation to the current UK cases which have rule 39 indications preventing return to Greece. Subject to one clarification the UK Government hereby gives its confirmation/agreement to the matters raise in points (1), (2) and (4) of the Court’s letter. In relation to point (3) the UK Government does not feel that it is in a position to give a permanent indication that “all ... future Greek asylum cases” will be examined under Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation. The UK Government confirms that this will be the case for as long as the situation outlined in our letter to the Court of 23 September prevails i.e. pending resolution of the Saeedi case, both by the CJEU and our domestic courts.
The UK Government would also like to confirm that no action will be taken to remove any applicant who was previously to be returned to Greece to Mogadishu without prior notice being given to the Court.”
In respect of B.S., the Section Registrar wrote to the Agent on 6 October 2010, referring to the above exchange of letters. The letter further observed that, pursuant to the Government’s assurances, the applicant’s substantive asylum claim fell to be considered in the United Kingdom under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation; she should have access to the full range of appeal rights as apply to other, non-Dublin Regulation asylum seekers, including the right to lodge a fresh application with this Court should that prove necessary; and no action should be taken to remove her until all her appeal rights have been exhausted. Confirmation of these rights was given by the Agent of the Government on 12 October 2010. On 22 October 2010, the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that they had no objections to the case being struck out pursuant to Article 37 of the Convention (see below).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that her removal to Greece would amount to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Similar complaints were made by the 232 other applicants in whose cases Rule 39 was applied. Those applicants further complained that, if removed from Greece, they would be at real risk of ill-treatment in their countries of origin.
THE LAW
Article 37 of the Convention provides:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.
2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.”
In order to determine whether an application should be struck out of the list pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) the Court must consider whether ‘‘the circumstances lead it to conclude that “for any other reason....it is no longer justified to continue the examination of [it]”. The Court recalls that it enjoys a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied upon in a strike out application on this basis; however, it also recalls that such grounds must reside in the particular circumstances of each case (Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 76642/01, § 37, ECHR 2006 ...; M.H. and A.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 38267/07 and 14293/07, 16 December 2008).
In the Court’s view, the particular circumstances of these applications are such that it is no longer justified to continue their examination.
B.S. and the other applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are based on the consequences of their return to Greece and the risk of expulsion from that country to their countries of origin. The applicants will now benefit from the undertakings of the Government set out in the exchange of letters between the Agent of the Government and the Section Registrar. The practical effect of these undertakings is that they will not be returned to Greece or any other country without a full examination of their claims by the Government of the United Kingdom and, moreover, they will have the opportunity to lodge new applications with the Court (including the possibility of requesting an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) should that need arise.
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 cases. Accordingly, it is appropriate to lift the interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Joins B.S. and the applications set out in the annex to this decision;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Annex
Application number
Applicant’s surname
Home Office reference number
Nationality
13249/08
KHALAF
K1277918
Syrian
17099/08
FESSEHATSION
F1096858
Eritrean
23244/08
ATALOO
J1157925
Iranian
23282/08
RAMZI
R1160782
Iranian
26983/08
AFKARI
A1369253
Iranian
27374/08
KIBROM
K1278278
Eritrean
27794/08
HABLU
H1184460
Eritrean
29281/08
JAVANMINI
J1166229
Iranian
29981/08
AHMADI
A1373938
Iranian
30097/08
KADIR
K1277013
Iraqi
30705/08
HOSSAIN
H1188369
Iraqi
31115/08
TEDROS
T1141493
Eritrean
31139/08
ARJOMAND
O1118891
Iranian
31371/08
IBRAHIM
J1166702
Iranian
31433/08
MORADI
M1161190
Afghan
31705/08
WATMAN
W1116248
Iranian
32026/08
HUSSEIN
H1187698
Iraqi
32286/08
NURI
N1142185
Afghan
32575/08
ROSTAMI
R1163560
Iranian
32627/08
U RRAHMAN
R1160178
Afghan
32771/08
ALI
A1375843
Afghan
32860/08
ANDE
A1374792
Eritrean
33064/08
SUHRAB
S1404272
Iranian
33329/08
ASIFI
A1367879
Afghan
33340/08
AKHONZADA
A1367879
Afghan
33534/08
ISMAIL
J1167068
Iraqi
33679/08
ZAMANKHEL
Z1083773
Afghan
33760/08
KAYHANFAR
K1283038
Iranian
33806/08
MOHAMMADI
M1373583
Iranian
33906/08
RAHMAN
R1161334
Afghan
34286/08
MOHAMMADI
M1373384
Afghan
35800/08
SAFEEII
S1405499
Afghan
36739/08
EWAZGANI
E1080019
Iranian
36969/08
SHENWARI
S1405856
Afghan
37070/08
KARIMI
K1283152
Iranian
37287/08
KHODAIE
K1275336
Iranian
37447/08
ZAHEIN
Z1084177
Afghan
37856/08
AHMADZAI
A1376199
Afghan
38179/08
IBRAHIMI
J1166234/2
Afghan
38217/08
UDEEN
U1060300
Afghan
38226/08
HASHAMI
H1190458
Afghan
38867/08
AMIR
A1377735
Iranian
38921/08
MAHRAN
M1355625
Iranian
39019/08
MIAKHEL
M1367787
Afghan
39144/08
RAZAVI
R1164023
Afghan
39415/08
HAILEMICHAEL
H1192650
Eritrean
39608/08
AHMEDZAI
A1370387
Afghan
39840/08
SAEEDI
S1369577
Afghan
39933/08
ZABEULLAM
Z1064177
Afghan
40200/08
ALBASHIR
A1205063
Sudanese
40457/08
AHMED
A1379189
Iranian
40739/08
JAHANI
J1168085
Iranian
40943/08
RASHIDI
R1165306
Iranian
41471/08
JAFARI
J1167903
Afghan
41497/08
SHINWARI
S1406070
Afghan
42314/08
MOHAMMED
M1375559
Afghan
42699/08
MOHAMMADI
M1375575
Iranian
42763/08
STANIGZAI
S1407563
Afghan
42851/08
GUL
G1165288
Afghan
43275/08
KHAN
K1285259
Afghan
43284/08
CHEGINI
C1202856
Iranian
48811/08
JABARKAJIL
J1168764
Afghan
15470/09
MOMAND
M1381539
Afghan
19463/09
NOORI
N1143365
Afghan
24309/09
SHEKHA
S1411058
Iranian
24344/09
SHIRZAD
S1420541
Afghan
24486/09
ADAM
A1397297
Sudanese
24743/09
YOHANNES
Y1105524
Eritrean
24748/09
KHAN
K1295233
Pakistani
27819/09
DAWIT
D1159353
Eritrean
31583/09
DULQAZIAN
D1160434
Afghan
32681/09
GHORZANIG
G1171426
Afghan
32731/09
ESMAILI
E1083149
Iranian
32833/09
HASAN
H1201113
Palestinian
32938/09
KHAN
K1298025
Afghan
35736/09
ALI
A1388808
Afghan
36410/09
MYAKKHEL
M1392596
Afghan
37144/09
GHORYH
G1171741
Afghan
38811/09
SHINWARI
S1428260
Afghan
39796/09
WOLDEGEBRIEL
W1123228
Eritrean
39834/09
ADAM
A1402884
Sudanese
39925/09
SARKANY
S1427974
Afghan
39974/09
SHERKHEL
S1427976
Afghan
40000/09
NIAZY
N1153447
Afghan
40364/09
JABARKHAIL
J1177753
Afghan
40730/09
HASANKHAIL
H1201822
Afghan
41634/09
NASIR
N1152888
Afghan
41897/09
AHMEDZAI
A1402447
Afghan
42410/09
NAZERY
N1153225
Afghan
42536/09
SHARIF
S1429862
Afghan
42542/09
SAFI
S1430386
Afghan
42712/09
BARIKZAI
B1271762
Afghan
43008/09
GHEBREHIWET
G1172698
Eritrean
43118/09
SAFIZADA
S1430387
Afghan
43219/09
AHMANDI
A1404993
Afghan
43348/09
NASSER
N1153301
Afghan
43652/09
BASHARDOUST
B1271875
Afghan
43838/09
KHOGINAI
K1297501
Afghan
43987/09
TAWAKAL
T1154255
Afghan
44718/09
AHMADY
A1405632
Afghan
45367/09
KHAROTI
K1300846
Afghan
45729/09
YAQBI
Y1107548
Afghan
45739/09
AHMADZAI
A1405146
Afghan
45798/09
SAFIZADA
S1425392
Afghan
46024/09
KHAN
K1300505
Afghan
46285/09
MOHAMMAD
M1376419
Afghan
46831/09
YOUSOFZAI
Y1103989
Afghan
46836/09
MOMAHM
A1395068
Afghan
46844/09
REZAE
R1174498
Afghan
47144/09
AMINI
A1405605
Afghan
47517/09
MOHAMMAD
M1397237
Afghan
47523/09
KHAN
K1301231
Afghan
47727/09
SHAHAD
S1431129
Afghan
47779/09
DIL
D1159918
Afghan
47801/09
NOORAJAN
N1154160
Afghan
47936/09
TAJIC
T1154597
Afghan
47938/09
HOTAK
H1202921
Afghan
47944/09
KHOGYANI
K1290755
Afghan
48632/09
MAMAT aka HUSSAINI
H1203398
Afghan
48962/09
KHAN
K1302699
Afghan
49099/09
SHINWARI
S1435554
Afghan
49329/09
NAIEM
N1154515
Afghan
49773/09
AHMADZAI
L1166875
Afghan
50556/09
AMARKHILL
A1409205
Afghan
51044/09
SARWARI
S1424932
Afghan
51060/09
KHAN
K1303305
Afghan
51068/09
SAFI
S1433918
Afghan
51103/09
BARATI
B1266470
Afghan
51158/09
HAZARBUZ
H1198352
Afghan
51518/09
SIDDIQUI
S1214539
Afghan
51527/09
SAFI
S1434678
Afghan
51790/09
KHAJEH
K1296182
Afghan
52001/09
SOLTANI
S1435665
Afghan
52033/09
JABARKHAIL
J1179438
Afghan
52466/09
RAHIMI
R1175829
Afghan
52776/09
HABIBI
H1204234
Afghan
52989/09
JIGARKHUN
J1172450
Afghan
53156/09
SHEYZAD
S1424667
Afghan
53184/09
SALEEM
S1435630
Afghan
53477/09
MANGAL
M1399970
Afghan
53739/09
KHAROTY
K1304856
Afghan
53825/09
MAJEER BEASUDWAL
M1398853
Afghan
54017/09
SHAH
L1167113
Afghan
54515/09
WALI
W1124338
Afghan
55663/09
JABARKHAIL
J1179657
Afghan
55681/09
BARAKZAI
B1273635
Afghan
55803/09
AMANUEL
A1410713
Eritrean
55871/09
HAKIMKHAIL
H1205550
Afghan
55956/09
SAFI
S1435176
Afghan
56661/09
AHMADZAI
A1410489
Afghan
57478/09
SAFFI
S1436443
Afghan
58341/09
MINCHANKHELE
M1375697
Afghan
58542/09
ODEKHEL
O1127264
Afghan
59244/09
KHAN
K1293488
Afghan
59387/09
KHAN
K1300626
Afghan
59390/09
ALMEDON
A1391714
Eritrean
61620/09
REMAN
R1177054
Afghan
61640/09
KAKARH
K1305210
Afghan
61652/09
MAHARI
M1386730
Eritrean
62674/09
KHALILY
K1305764
Afghan
62872/09
SAFFI
S1436445
Afghan
63316/09
AHSAN aka HASSEN
A1412719
Afghan
63934/09
SAFI
S1436868
Afghan
64174/09
KHAN
K1291841
Afghan
64657/09
KHAKSAR
K1304448
Afghan
64933/09
ESAKHEN
E1085865
Afghan
64958/09
RHAN
R1176924
Afghan
66388/09
GUL
G1176640
Afghan
66777/09
REZAI
R1170760
Afghan
66857/09
ISLAM
J1172134
Afghan
66994/09
SEDIQI
S1424344
Afghan
67791/09
MOMAND
M1383117
Afghan
557/10
JABBARKHEL
J1181269
Afghan
1208/10
ARAB
A1394698
Afghan
1423/10
SAFIZADA
S1424308
Afghan
3091/10
MAQSOUDI
A1418612
Afghan
3146/10
AFZAHI
A1413403
Afghan
5466/10
AHMADSALIH
A1418606
Afghan
6933/10
ASHURI
A1413566
Afghan
7619/10
HOSSAINI
H1200006
Afghan
8364/10
MEERMOHAMMAD
M1406434
Afghan
8900/10
MIR
M1375848
Afghan
10312/10
NOURZAD
N1158110
Afghan
10490/10
STANIKZAI
S1439210
Afghan
10596/10
SHINWARI
S1443478
Afghan
11022/10
MANGEL
M1407616
Afghan
11432/10
KHAN
K1309948
Afghan
11720/10
SHINWARI
S1443475
Afghan
12435/10
BABAEI-NASRABADI
B1278777
Iranian
12642/10
MOHAMMED
M1397142
Sudanese
13541/10
NIAZI
N1157992
Afghan
13990/10
REZAI
R1177566
Afghan
14233/10
HOSSAINI
H1195445
Afghan
14649/10
QAZIKHILL
Q1055575
Afghan
15645/10
SADIQ
S1424697
Afghan
18032/10
MIRZABEGI
M1403116
Iranian
20223/10
ULLAH
U1064424
Afghan
24876/10
SHERZAD
S1438596
Afghan
25445/10
BARAKZAI
B1277374
Afghan
25494/10
ATEEM
A1425792
Sudanese
25913/10
KHAN
K1308660
Afghan
26743/10
ABDULAH
A1424578
Afghan
32799/10
AHMADGUL
A1400651
Afghan
38104/10
ULLAH
U1066441
Afghan
38773/10
NASIRZAI
N1162042
Afghan
39463/10
SAFI
S1443572
Afghan
40648/10
ALAM
A1429571
Afghan
41465/10
MOQIMI
M1408074
Afghan
44089/10
SAFI
S1457481
Afghan
48050/10
FAGHEERZADEH
F1106792
Afghan
50425/10
HAILE
H1210807
Eritrean
50523/10
SAFI
S1457941
Afghan
50752/10
FAHIMI
F1109556
Iranian
50805/10
MARUOFKHAIL
M1418654
Afghan
51108/10
ABDULJALIL
A1424133
Afghan
51656/10
HABIBI
H1208356
Iranian
53163/10
RASHIDI
R1182095
Iranian
Application number
Applicant’s surname
Home Office Reference Number
Nationality
6553/08
SHEIKH
S1391264
Somali
6571/08
MUDEY
M1361316
Somali
21919/08
GUTALE
G1086468
Somali
23269/08
MUHAMED
M1366524
Somali
30700/08
MOHAMED
M1372207
Somali
32948/08
ADAN
A1368302
Somali
33017/08
QAADI
Q1052312
Somali
33027/08
BUSSURI
B1256366
Somali
40138/08
QASIM
Q1052497
Somali
40447/08
ABUBAKAR
A1373113
Somali
42855/08
ISMAN
J1167591
Somali
54665/08
GABAYRE
G1166828
Somali
5601/09
YUSEF
Y1105784
Somali
61440/09
BUWE
B1275927
Somali
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy