Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka v. Sundori Bibi, Sufia Begum, MD Alauddin

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, DHAKA v SUNDORI BIBI, SUFIA BEGUM, MD ALAUDDIN

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

[1987] Imm AR 509

Hearing Date: 9 June 1987

9 June 1987

Index Terms:

Evidence -- the proper approach to reports on blood tests containing a haematologist's opinion on the probability of appellants being related to a sponsor -- whether such reports are conclusive in immigration appeal.s

Held:

The entry clearance officer, Dhaka, appealed against the determination of an adjudicator allowing an appeal because he considered he was bound to accept as conclusive a blood test prepared by a consultant haematologist. In so determining the appeal he thought that he was bound by the Tribunal decision in Dilwara Begum. Held: 1. The adjudicator had misdirected himself and had misunderstood the determination in Dilwara Begum. 2. Blood test reports are not in themselves conclusive. They must be weighed in the balance and assessed in the context of the circumstances of the case generally. With the agreement of the parties no oral hearing of the appeal was held.

Cases referred to in the Judgment:

Dilwara Begum (unreported) (4617). PANEL: Professor DC Jackson (Vice President) RE Hunte Esq JP, LW Chapman MBE

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL: The entry clearance officer, Dhaka, appeals against the decision of an adjudicator (M Meredith-Hardy Esq) allowing the appeal of the respondents against the refusal of entry clearance to join the sponsor Taj Ullah as his wife and children. The respondents were refused on the ground that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that they were related as claimed. Before the adjudicator a considerable amount of oral and documentary evidence was presented. Included in the documentary evidence was a blood test report from Professor Barbara Dodd. She drew the conclusion from the blood test that on that evidence she was of the opinion "that there is more than a 50% chance" that if the family was not related as claimed, this fact would have been disclosed by the results. The adjudicator was of the view that he was bound by a decision of the Tribunal (Dilwara Begum (4617)) to accept this blood test report as conclusive and outweighing all other evidence. The ajudicator commented that, in his view, the decision as to entry would rest on the shoulders of Professor Dodd. In our view, the adjudicator was wrong on two counts. First, whatever else is the function of a blood test and however persuasive or conclusive it may be, it has nothing to do with immigration control. It is a matter of evidence as to relationship and the immigration consequences of that relationship are for Parliament and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Secondly, the adjudicator, with respect, was acting under a misconception as to the effect of Dilwara Begum. While it is true that in that case the Tribunal accepted a similar opinion of Professor Dodd, it also stated categorically that the blood test "was no more than just another piece of evidence which had to be set against the history of deceit which had been employed in the past". We agree and we understand the parties to agree. A blood test report is evidence. The effect of that evidence in an immigration case depends first, on the report itself and secondly, upon the weighing of that report as against all other evidence going to the particular issue to which the report goes. It is for the adjudicator and the Tribunal to weigh all the evidence including the blood test report and to come to a decision on the totality of the evidence. The parties agreed that in the circumstances of this case, a hearing was not necessary and furhter agreed that the matter should be heard de novo. The appeal is allowed insofar as the matter is remitted to an adjudicator other than Mr Meredith-Hardy for a hearing de novo.

DISPOSITION:

Appeal allowed to the extent that it be remitted for hearing de novo.