The applicant was a national of Pakistan, who had claimed asylum upon his arrival in the UK in 2009. The applicant had left Pakistan following heavy fighting in his home region, after it came under the control of the Taliban. The respondent had refused the applicant’s claim for asylum and subsequent appeals against this decision were refused by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. In this action, the applicant applied to the Court of Session for leave to appeal against these decisions, and ...
|
The petitioner was born in Zimbabwe, but had settled in South Africa, latterly gaining citizenship there. The petitioner had entered the UK in 2003 and subsequently in 2005, and had been illegally resident since 2006. In July 2010, the respondent refused the petitioner’s application for asylum, and also certified her claim as “clearly unfounded” under sections 94(2) and (3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, with the result that the petitioner was unable to ap ...
|
In this petition for judicial review, the petitioner sought review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had ruled that representations made on behalf of the petitioner did not amount to a fresh claim for asylum or subsidiary protection. The petitioner was a citizen of Iraq, who had come to the UK in March 2010, and had claimed asylum upon arrival. By August 2010, his rights of appeal against the refusal to grant asylum were exhausted, and fresh representations wer ...
|
In this reclaiming motion, the reclaimer sought to appeal against a decision of the Lord Ordinary, whereby the reclaimer’s petition for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was dismissed. In that decision, the Secretary of State had ruled that new material submitted by the reclaimer did not create a realistic prospect of success before an Immigration Judge, that the reclaimer’s asylum should be granted. It was argued by the reclaimer that ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |