Immigration Appeal Tribunal
This was an appeal by an Iranian national, against a determination of the mmigration Appeal Tribunal dated 3 April 2003. The tribunal had refused the appellant's appeal against the determination of an adjudicator dated 19 July 2002 in which it was held that her return to Iran (a) would not contravene the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and (b) would not contravene Articles 2, 3 or 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 8 May 2003 the tribunal refused t ...
|
Appeal to the Court of Session under section 103(2
The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Seven grounds of appeal were put forward. Leave was granted in respect of ground 5 but refused in respect of the other grounds. Following a hearing the Tribunal, by determination notified on 10 February 2004, dismissed the appeal. The appellant then sought leave from the Tribunal to appeal to the Court here. On 26 March 2004 that was refused. On 30 June 2004 the appellant applied to the court here for leave to appeal. It wa ...
|
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.
|
| 1 2 |