SS (Malaysia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, July 18, 2013, [2013] EWCA Civ 888

Resolution Date:July 18, 2013
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:SS (Malaysia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Case No: C5/2013/3057Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 888IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL(ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION CHAMBER)Upper Tribunal Judge PerkinsAA 08202 2011Royal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 18 July 2013Before :LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICKLORD JUSTICE RIMERandLORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Miss Rebecca Chapman (instructed by Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) for the appellantMiss Lisa Busch (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the respondentHearing date : 11th June 2013- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentLord Justice Moore-Bick : 1. This appeal raises some sensitive questions about a child's religious upbringing. The appellant is a national of Malaysia who was brought up as a Sikh but converted to Christianity as an adult and was received into the Roman Catholic church. In December 2006 she married another citizen of Malaysia who is of Nigerian origin. At the time of their marriage he was also a Roman Catholic, but in early 2010 he became interested in Islam and eventually indicated his intention to convert. The couple have one child, a boy called C, who was born in May 2006. He was baptised and received into the Roman Catholic church as a baby and has been brought up as a Catholic. 2. The appellant was very concerned at the prospect that her husband might convert to Islam and insist that C be brought up as a Muslim. She did not want that to happen, so in May 2010 she travelled to the United Kingdom with C to spend some time with her sister. She thought that would give her husband time to reflect on what he was doing. She did not tell him that she was planning to go abroad and not surprisingly, when he found that she had left taking their son with her, he contacted the police. By the end of 2010 the appellant's husband had become a convert to Islam.3. The appellant entered this country on 14th May 2010 and was granted 6 months' entry clearance. On 3rd November 2010 she visited Paris briefly, returning the next day. She was then granted another 6 months' entry clearance. On 27th May 2011 the appellant claimed asylum on the grounds that if she were returned to Malaysia she would be arrested by the authorities and would be at risk of ill-treatment from her husband, who would insist that C be brought up as a Muslim. On 23rd June 2011 the Secretary of State rejected the appellant's claim on the grounds that her fears did not arise from any of the matters covered by the Refugee Convention and that she did not qualify for humanitarian protection.4. The appellant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was heard by Designated Immigration Judge Digney on 2nd November 2011. He accepted her account, but dismissed her appeal on the grounds that she was not at risk of ill-treatment at the hands either of the authorities or of her husband. He also held that removal would not disproportionately interfere with her rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (``the Convention'') and that it was in the best interests of C to be brought up...

To continue reading