UK - Supreme Court, 22 November 2010, MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 49
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
EDAL summary. Where an applicant's account is rejected as incredible, his or her claim will only succeed where there is undisputed objective evidence which goes a long way towards showing that the applicant is none...
What happened
The applicant, a Somali national and member of the Isaaq clan, sought asylum in the UK after arriving in 1995. His asylum claim was initially refused, but he was granted exceptional leave to remain, which was later extended. Following a serious criminal conviction in 2008, the Secretary of State sought to deport him to Mogadishu, leading to a series of legal challenges culminating in this Supreme Court case.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court held that when an asylum applicant provides a wholly incredible account, the tribunal must assess the weight of the lie alongside all other evidence, and the applicant remains burdened to prove a well‑founded fear; because the applicant did not truthfully disclose his connections in Mogadishu, the tribunal was correct to conclude that the possibility of such connections could not be excluded and that the applicant had not discharged his burden of proof.
How the court got there
The Supreme Court held that when an asylum applicant presents a wholly incredible account, the tribunal must evaluate the weight of the lies alongside all other evidence. The Court emphasized that the applicant failed to truthfully disclose his connections in Mogadishu, which meant that the tribunal could not exclude the possibility of such connections, thus he did not meet his burden of proof.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Refugee Convention art. 33
- Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.