Petition for Judicial Review of a decision by an e
The petitioner, an Afghani, fled Afghanistan in 2004 and arrived in Greece by inflatable boat in October 2004, where he was immediately arrested and detained. After five days he was released from detention and given a piece of paper advising him that he must leave Greece within 30 days which he did and he arrived in the United Kingdom on 23 March 2005 and tried to claim asylum in the United Kingdom. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Home Secretary's decision of a letter dated 8 April ...
|
Original application refused on the basis that the applicant had failed to establish to any standard that there is a risk of her being persecuted for a Refugee Convention reason. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner finds herself in a Robinson situation in that the point being argued on her behalf was not specifically mentioned in her Grounds for Leave to Appeal to the Tribunal. In this case nationality is a major issue.
|
Immigration and Asylum:
Judicial Review of (1) a determination of an Immigration Appeal Adjudicator in terms of sections 65 and 69(5) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and (2)the refusal of an application for leave to appeal by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Adjudicator was not satisfied that there was a risk that the petitioners human rights would be contravened or that he would suffer persecution for a relevant reason in the event that he was returned to Turkey. The issue is whether the Immigration Appeal Tr ...
|
Petitioner seeking judicial review to reduce the decision of the Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal from the adjudicator. The adjudicator had earlier refused an appeal against a decision of the secretary of state refusing asylum. The case also consid
|
Asylum application initially refused by the Secretary of State. The appellant was then served with a notice of Refusal of Leave to Enter after Refusal of Asylum which he appealed against. This appeal was refused by an adjudicator and then by the IAT. Appeal hearing now before the court. The appeal broadly relates to the appellants compulsory military service.
|
Asylum:
Secretary of State refused asylum and the appellant appealed to an adjudicator. The adjudicator took an adverse view of the credibility of the appellant and her husband. The appellant then appealed to the IAT which dismissed the appeal. Leave to appeal was then granted by the Court of Session. In the appeal counsel for the appellant argued that the adjudicator had erred in law in his assessment of the evidence and in particular in his approach to credibility. It was contended that the adjudicato ...
|
Reclaimers application for asylum was originally rejected because he had failed to extablish a well founded fear of persecution and also because of credibility issues. Case considers the right to a fair hearing which includes an obligation to ensure that the person whose rights are being affected adversely by a decision of the Tribunal or Court in question is informed adequately of why his case did not succeed.
|
Consideration as to whether the peitioner had established a well founded fear of persecution in his homeland of Sri Lanka.
|
Asylum:
Petitioner seeking judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal which refused leave to appeal against the decision of an adjudicator.The petitioner is seeking reduction of the determinations of both the adjudicator and and IAT on the basis that: the decision of the adjudicator to to determine the appeal without a hearing under procedure rule 43(1)(e) was made under error fact in that the reply form referred to by the adjudicator in para 2 of his determination had in fact be ...
|
Judicial Review
Here the petitioner sought a judicial review of a decision made on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, refusing an application for asylum and refusing to treat the petitioner's submissions as a fresh claim within Rule 353 of the Immigration Rules (HC 395) (as amended). The petitioner was a Belarus national who by letter dated 15 August 2005 requested the Home Office to consider what was described as a fresh claim for asylum. By letter dated 26 November 2005 an official acti ...
|
| 1 |