Jonathan Metzer appeared successfully via video link before the First-tier Tribunal at the appeal of a 62-year old man who is HIV positive and suffering with resultant end stage kidney disease against the decision to remove him to Ghana.
On the basis of evidence including a report from his treating genitourinary consultant and a report concerning access to healthcare in Ghana, it was contended that there was a real risk that his removal would significantly reduce his life expectancy due to lack of access to the kidney and/or HIV therapy he was receiving in the UK.
In a 77-paragraph determination, it was found that the “evidence is compelling, if the appellant does not receive the dialysis he requires three times a week, then he will die in a matter of weeks … Having considered the evidence, I find that even with the support of his children, the appellant cannot reasonably afford to access the treatment on an ongoing basis. My finding is supported by the expert evidence which indicates that only a very small minority of people requiring dialysis could afford to continue with the treatment after three months.”
As for access to HIV treatment, it had been acknowledged by the Secretary of State that the medication he had been prescribed was subject to supply problems and the Tribunal stated that “I find there is no medical evidence to support the proposition suggested [by the Secretary of State] as an acceptable alternative to the treatment plan the appellant is currently accessing”. In these circumstances, “if the appellant is not adequately treated for his HIV, his prognosis would again be markedly reduced with a life expectancy of 1-2 years only”.
The appeal was allowed under Article 3 (and Article 8) ECHR, following the principles set out in Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867 and AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17.
Jonathan was instructed by Kaweh Beheshtizadeh of Fadiga and Co.
