This is a mother’s appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that her removal from the United Kingdom will constitute a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her private and family life, guaranteed by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The over-arching issue is the weight to be given to the best interests of children who are affected by the decision to remove or deport one or both of their parents from this country. Within this is a more specific question: ...
|
The petitioner was a national of Nigeria, who had entered the UK in December 2006, having been granted a visitor’s visa for six months. After the expiry of this visa, the petitioner did not return home and became an “overstayer”, during which time he formed a relationship with his now fiancée. Because of their joint concerns about his immigration status, the petitioner sought legal advice from a Scottish solicitor, who advised him to return to Nigeria and make a fresh appl ...
|
The petitioner was a national of Nigeria who had arrived in the UK in November 2007 and subsequently claimed asylum on the ground that she feared persecution. This claim for asylum was rejected by the respondent, and was upheld on appeal to an Immigration Judge in April 2009. At that hearing, the Immigration Judge noted that he did not find the petitioner’s account to be credible and raised suspicions surrounding the possibility that the petitioner may have been trafficked to the UK for th ...
|
The petitioner was a citizen of Bangladesh, who had entered the UK in 2003 using a false passport. He did not claim international protection upon his entry to the UK. It was only following his arrest in January 2006 that he claimed asylum. The claim was based upon the petitioner's fear that if returned to Bangladesh he would face mistreatment because of his political opinions and that his removal from the UK would be contrary to articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He cla ...
|
The petitioner was a national of Iran, who had entered the UK illegally in April 2009. Following his subsequently refused claim for asylum and various appeals, the petitioner became “rights of appeal exhausted” in July 2009. In September 2009, fresh representations were made by petitioner, but these were not held by the respondent to amount to a “fresh claim for asylum” in terms of Rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. The petitioner sought judicial review of that decision. ...
|
The petitioner was a national of India, who had claimed asylum in the UK. The petitioner claimed his removal from the UK back to India would result in a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this application for judicial review, the petitioner sought quashing of decisions of the Secretary of State, who had certified the petitioner’s claim for asylum as “clearly unfounded” in terms of sections 94(2) and (3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum ...
|
The first petitioner was a Nigerian national; the second and third petitioners were her 12 year old son and 8 year old daughter, respectively. The petitioner also had a son, aged 4. The petitioners had entered the UK in June 2005, but since February 2007 had no right to remain in the UK, the visa of the first petitioner’s husband having expired at that point. By May 2009, the first petitioner’s husband had abandoned her and their children. The first petitioner claimed that sh ...
|
The petitioner had identified himself as a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo born on 14 June 1972, and had claimed asylum at the Liverpool Asylum Screening Unit on 15 July 2008. On 4 November 2008, the petitioner was refused asylum and ordered to be removed from the United Kingdom. A subsequent appeal was dismissed in January 2009 and the petitioner was eventually recorded as being appeal rights exhausted on 26 May 2009. Latterly, further representations for asylum were submitted to t ...
|
The petitioner had arrived in the United Kingdom in December 2006 and claimed asylum that month. The petitioner’s asylum claim was refused in January 2007, and a subsequent appeal against its refusal was dismissed in March 2007. The petitioner became appeal rights exhausted in May 2007. On 17 March 2010 the petitioner submitted fresh representations to the respondent in the form of two documents bearing to be from Iran. On 20 April 2010, the respondent issued a decision letter to the ...
|
The petitioner was a citizen of Iran and arrived in the United Kingdom on 7 July 2008, before claiming asylum on 9 July 2008. That application was refused on 28 October 2008 and a subsequent appeal against that decision dismissed on 24 December 2008. Thereafter further representations were made on behalf of the petitioner by letter from his agent dated 10 September 2009. These representations included a medical report, allegedly supporting his ill-treatment in Iran. The petitioner sought to have ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |