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 ...
|
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 ...
|
Supreme Court Press Summary – 26 November 2009 Background to the appeal BA and PE were each served a deportation order after unsuccessful appeals on human rights and asylum grounds against the decision to deport them. Both unsuccessfully made further submissions to the Secretary of State in an attempt to have the order revoked. They then applied to judicially review the decision not to revoke the deportation order, maintaining that their removal from the United Kingdom would be in breach ...
|
This case turns on the construction of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules 2006, which came into force on 3 April 2006. Until then, a foreigner with any medical qualification was entitled to apply for leave to remain in the UK as a postgraduate doctor. The new rule confined the entitlement to those with medical qualifications from UK institutions. Did the new rule apply to all cases in which leave still had to be granted? Or only to doctors who had not yet applied? The distinction was ...
|
Mr Nasseri is an Afghan national who crossed into Greece in Dec 2004 and claimed asylum. The application was rejected in April 2005. By then he may already have been on his way to the UK, which he entered in September 2005 concealed under a lorry. When detected he again claimed asylum. Council Reg (EC) No 343/2003 (“the Dublin II Regulation”) provides in art.10 that if an asylum seeker has crossed the border from a third country into a Member State, that Member State, and only that ...
|
In December 2005 the Secretary of State rejected the respondent’s asylum and human rights claims and certified that they were clearly unfounded under s.94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The respondent was then served with a decision under s.82(2)(h) to remove him from the UK as an illegal immigrant. Twice in 2006 he made further submissions in support of his claims. In November 2006, the Secretary of State maintained her certification of the claims under s.94. It w ...
|
The appellant is a national of the Republic of Poland. She came to Northern Ireland for the purpose of seeking employment in July 2004. From July 2004 to January 2005 she worked for Monaghan Mushrooms Ltd. She applied for a registration certificate under reg 8 of the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 which she received in November 2004. In January 2005, the appellant left Monaghan Mushrooms and secured work with two other employers (Smirnoff and Linwo ...
|
The appellant EM is a Lebanese national. She came to this country in December 2004 with her son AF, the second intervener, who is now aged 12. She claimed asylum. EM married in Lebanon but later divorced her husband because of his violence. Under the prevailing law the father retained legal custody of AF, but the divorce court ruled that the child should remain in EM’s care until he reached the age of seven. Thereafter, Islamic law as applied in Lebanon entitled the fat ...
|
The appellant is a Palestinian by birth. The appellant claimed asylum in this country on a number of grounds. Her application was refused by the Home Secretary and, on appeal, by an adjudicator. The appellant was refused leave to appeal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. She then lodged a petition in the Court of Session seeking a review of that refusal under s.101 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The petition was considered by Lady Cosgrove who dismissed it. The appe ...
|
The issue before the House is whether a local social services authority is obliged, under s.21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only needs, other than for a home and subsistence, are for medication prescribed by his doctor and a refrigerator in which to keep it. The answer to that issue turns on the meaning of the words “in need of care and attention which ...
|
| 1 2 |