In this appeal, the reclaimer argued that his imminent removal to his country of origin unnecessarily and unlawfully interfered with his Article 8 ECHR rights to a private life. The respondent had previously declined to treat submissions on the reclaimer’s private as fresh representations for asylum, under Rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. The reclaimer submitted that the respondent’s decision letter was so muddled, both in terms of content and sequence of issues considered, ...
|
The petitioner, who claimed to have left Iran with the help of an agent in 2009, had come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum. His application for asylum was refused by the respondent in October 2009, and subsequent appeals against that decision were dismissed. In April 2010, further representations were made to the respondent on behalf of the petitioner, relying on documents which were alleged to be court citations from the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Boukan. In May 2010, the respondent mad ...
|
The petitioner was a citizen of Tanzania, who had arrived in the UK in October 2006 on a student visa. Upon expiry of that visa in 2008, the petitioner failed to leave the country and accordingly became an overstayer. The petitioner was detained at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre on 3 February 2011, and directions for his immediate removal were served on him by the UK Border Agency. Agents for the petitioner submitted written representations to the Secretary of State, outlining that the pe ...
|
The issue in this appeal is whether a failure by the Respondent to comply with a procedural requirement in its policy relating to the detention of foreign national prisoners results in their detention being unlawful, so as to allow the detainee to advance a claim in tort for false imprisonment.Shepherd Masimba Kambadzi is a Zimbabwean national. He entered the UK lawfully, but remained here after his leave to remain expired. In 2005, he was convicted of assault and sexual assault, sentenced to on ...
|
This appeal concerns the relationship between two rights which enable non-nationals to remain in the United Kingdom: humanitarian protection, which derives from European law, and asylum, which derives from a combination of domestic law, European law, and international law. The issue in the appeal is whether, because a right of appeal exists against a refusal of an asylum application, European law requires that a right of appeal also be available against a refusal of an application for humanitari ...
|
The petitioner was a national of Afghanistan, who entered the UK in September 2008 and sought asylum. The petitioner maintained that he left Afghanistan after he had been falsely accused of committing adultery with his sister-in-law, and contended that were he to be returned to Afghanistan he would be at risk of persecution at the hands of his brother, his sister-in-law's father, the local community and the State as a perceived adulterer. The petitioner's claim for asylum was refused by the resp ...
|
The petitioner, who was a citizen of Zimbabwe, sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to not treat his further representations as a fresh claim for asylum under Rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. Having entered the UK in September 2008 and had his claims for asylum subsequently refused, the petitioner had become "appeal rights exhausted" by January 2009. In March 2010, fresh representations were made on the petitioner's behalf, on grounds that firstly, he was a refuge ...
|
The petitioner claimed to be a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), who had entered the UK illegally in July 2006. Following unsuccessful attempts to claim asylum, the petitioner became “rights of appeal exhausted” in November 2006 and has since remained in the UK illegally. In this action, the petitioner sought review of the decision of the respondent to detain him at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre pending deportation, and for interim liberation from immigration ...
|
The petitioner was an illegal immigrant, detained at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre awaiting deportation. The petitioner claimed to be a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), who entered the UK in April 2004, claiming asylum shortly thereafter. This claim for asylum was refused and following subsequent unsuccessful appeals, the petitioner was “rights of appeal exhausted” by December 2004. After this date, the petitioner did not leave the UK and remained illegally. ...
|
The petitioner, who was a national of Cameroon, arrived in the UK in January 2007 and claimed asylum. This claim was rejected and subsequent appeals failed. Previous immigration judges had held that they did not believe the petitioner in his account of how he had been detained by the authorities in Cameroon and neither did they believe that the petitioner would be of any interest to the authorities upon his return. In this present action, the petitioner claimed that he was the subject of a news ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |