CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 novembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s2055D3B3 { width:16.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7C039683 { width:226.45pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s2B2695D6 { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2D4DB0A7 { height:12.75pt } 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 Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President 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