Case No. UKUT-00286-(IAC)

50. Having set out the legal principles that are engaged, it is as well to recap the scope of the issues before the Upper Tribunal. The appellant, now aged 27, had spent some 3½ years at a Madrasa in Afghanistan prior to his coming to the United Kingdom. He was encountered by immigration officials on 8 January 2007, aged 17 or 18, concealed in the back of a lorry and was notified of his liability to be removed. His asylum claim was refused on 29 May 2007 and his appeal rights became exhausted in October 2007. In February 2011, the appellant sought judicial review of the respondent’s refusal to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim. Those were summarily refused on 1 June 2011, it being thought that the respondent’s decision-making process had been lawful and that the proceedings were bound to fail. I am now bound to consider his claim under Article 9. 51. The appellant’s personal claim to avoid removal was (and remains) hampered by this poor immigration history. Attention therefore focuses on the intervention of the Afghanistan Islamic Cultural Centre (AICC) and the effect that the appellant’s removal will have on it as an a organisation and as acting on behalf of the Afghan Muslim community in the United Kingdom, and London in particular. 52. This decision requires consideration to be given to the following elements: (i)