The applicants sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, made on 26 November 2008, dismissing their appeals against the decisions of the respondent by letters of 4 January 2007, to refuse their claims for asylum and remove them to Somalia. The first applicant was father of the second who was born on 1 February 2006. The first applicant arrived in the United Kingdom with the second applicant, his wife and their male son on 16 November 2006. The first appl ...
|
The applicant was a national of Guinea, who arrived in the UK in March 2007 and claimed asylum. His claim was refused, and his subsequent appeal against this decision was also refused in April 2008. Thereafter, a reconsideration hearing in June 2008 concluded that the reasoning on which the Immigration Judge had based his adverse credibility finding was flawed. However, it was also determined that the adverse credibility finding made no material difference to the outcome of the appeal because th ...
|
The petitioner, an Iranian national, arrived in the UK on 19 July 2006 and applied for asylum on that date, but this was refused. After subsequent appeals, her rights of appeal were finally exhausted on 26 February 2007. On 15 September 2009 the Petitioner's solicitors made a fresh claim for asylum under Immigration Rule 353 on the ground that fresh evidence had become available. On 29 September 2009 the UK Border Agency refused the fresh claim. In this action, the petitioner sought judicial rev ...
|
Judicial review:- The petition sought reduction of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which the petitioner was refused leave to remain in the UK. In 2003, the petitioner submitted to the respondent an application for leave to remain in UK, on the basis of his marriage to a UK national. This was rejected; the petitioner had the opportunity to appeal against this determination, but did not do so. The petitioner made a further application, which was later rejected in ...
|
The petitioner was a citizen of Sudan, who arrived and claimed asylum in the UK in June 2008; her claim for asylum was subsequently rejected in July 2008. By January 2009, she had become “appeal rights exhausted” and in December 2009, she requested the Secretary of State reconsider her application for asylum, indicating it was a fresh claim for asylum under Rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. Her new representations were not recognized by the UK Border Agency, on behalf of the Secreta ...
|
The petition was a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), who claimed she was a supporter of the Mouvement pour la Liberation du Congo (MLC) led by Jean Pierre Bemba. She claimed to have run a bar and restaurant in Kinshasa and that the premises were used for meetings during the 2006 election, and to hold mobile and satellite telephones on behalf of the party. She claimed that following the MLC’s defeat in the 2006, relations between the party and the government broke down, an ...
|
Petition for Judicial Review:- The petition and appellant was a citizen of Pakistan, who came to the UK in September 2006. He sought asylum on grounds of his persecution in Pakistan, as a result of his adherence to, and involvement in, the Ahmadi faith. His application at that time was refused, and subsequent appeals were also refused, with his appeal rights ending in May 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner had made further representations, which he considered constituted a fresh cl ...
|
HJ and HT are homosexual men – from Iran and Cameroon, respectively – who seek asylum in the United Kingdom on the basis that they would face the risk of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation if returned to their home countries.The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal, holding that the ‘reasonable tolerability’ test applied by the Court of Appeal is contrary to the Convention and should not be followed in the future. HJ and HT’s cases are remitted forreconsideration in light of the ...
|
Normal 0 In this action the appellants are citizens of Pakistan, Sikhs, and members of the same family. The first, second and third appellants arrived in the United Kingdom on 4 December 2006. The fourth appellant arrived three days later. They all claimed asylum in January 2007 and their applications were refused the following month. Under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 they appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. On 22 May 20 ...
|
The respondent is a Sri Lankan Tamil. In 1992, at the age of 10, he became a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”), the following year joining the LTTE’s Intelligence Division. He occupied various positions of responsibility and gained promotions within the organisation. At 18 he was appointed to lead a mobile unit transporting military equipment and other members of the Intelligence Division through jungles to a point where armed members of the Division could ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |