The man, who arrived at Anne Port by dinghy in August, will be allowed to stay in Jersey until the Royal Court decides whether to allow his asylum request.
In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in Jersey, the man – who has been living as a refugee in a European state – is appealing against a decision to return him to that country.
His initial asylum request was rejected by the Customs and Immigration Service. However, he has now been granted leave to appeal against that decision as he seeks to settle permanently in Jersey.
The decision comes as Chief Minister John Le Fondré indicated his support for allowing unaccompanied child refugees into the Island. Jersey has recently faced renewed calls from Labour peer Lord Alf Dubs to shelter child refugees.
Deputy Bailiff Tim Le Cocq said the Syrian national’s appeal should be considered as it has a ‘realistic prospect of success’ given potential human-rights violations if he were to be returned to the European nation.
During a previous court appearance, Advocate Sarah Dale, representing the asylum seeker, told the court that the Syrian national had faced persecution from ISIS in the European country and his life would be in danger should he be deported from the Island.
She added that even if the country could be considered ‘safe’, the fear of being targeted by terrorists had left her client with mental-health issues and that he would probably commit suicide if he was forced to leave.
Advocate Dale argued that in ordering the man’s deportation, the minister had failed to consider whether he could be safely returned and that should he be returned he potentially faced ‘inhuman, degrading treatment’. This, she said, breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In allowing the appeal to be heard, Mr Le Cocq said: ‘The decision has potentially profound and far-reaching effects on the applicant and his future.
‘Given the evidence relating to the applicant’s particular circumstances and his experience in the European jurisdiction, and notwithstanding the undoubted and material efforts that the authorities in the European jurisdiction have undertaken to protect the applicant, it appears to me that there are serious issues to be considered relating to the applicant’s human rights and how those interplay with the asylum regime in these particular circumstances.
‘Should in these circumstances an assessment of the merits of the applicant’s claim have been carried out? There are, it seems to me, arguments on both sides.
‘In my judgment, there is an arguable ground for judicial review having a realistic prospect of success on consideration of the human-rights issues although, of course, in making that assessment, I do not prejudge what the eventual outcome might be.’
Mr Le Cocq was sitting alone for the case. No date has been given for further hearings.
