VERITAS THE TEAM: Immigration help visarejection.com

Asylum & Immigration Cases ( A -Z)

Coming soon

Abandonment
Abandonment - s58(9)
Abandonment of appeal
ABCD not to be followed
Abdi
Abduction
Ability to speak Kibajuni
Absence of appellant
Absence of party
Abuse of process
Accession
Accession nationals not now removed
Accommodation
Accuracy of country material
Acholi
Activism
Activities abroad
Activity
Activity in war
Adan
Adequacy of maintenance
Adequate accomodation
Adequate treatment

Adjournment

We would be grateful if you would reconsider that decision having regard
to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Assenov v
Bulgaria 28 October 1998 (90/1997/874/1086). In particular, we note that
as the High Court stated in the case of Nasseri [2007] EWHC 1548(Admin):

"...the right to an adequate investigation of an asylum claim is an
aspect of substantive right under Article 3". This is set out in
Assenov's case as follows:

"The Court considers that, in these circumstances, where an individual
raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the
police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of
Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the States general
duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within
their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined ...[the] Convention"
requires by implication that there should be an effective official
investigation ... If this were not the case, the general legal
prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and
punishment, despite its fundamental importance would be ineffective in
practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the state
to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual
impunity."

AM (Cameroon) [2007] v the AIT EWCA
Civ 131
Adjudicator
Adjudicator determination
Adjudicator reasoning
Adjudicator response to interpreter problems
Adjudicator wrongly obtaining post-hearing evidence
Adjudicator's conduct
Adjudicator's questions
Adjudicators
Adjudicators differing on family members
Adjudicators: "anxious scrutiny" / public interest
admissable
Admission of Evidence
Adoption
Adoption to care
Adultery
Adults
AE reaffirmed
Afghanistan

MT (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA)

An Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had erred in finding that there was no evidence that a Muslim from Afghanistan, who had converted to the Mormon faith whilst in the United Kingdom, was at risk of being tried and sentenced to death as an apostate if he was returned to Afghanistan
Age
Age assessment
Age dispute
Age: immutable characteristic
Ahmadi
Ahmadis: Rabwah
AIDS and Articles 3 and 8
Airport
Akaeke
Al-Hagh
Albania
Albanian
Albanians
Algeria
Allegations againt adjudicator
allegations by respondent
Alleged forgery
Alleging misconduct and suppressing evidence
Ambit of s.85(5) of 2002 Act
Analysis
Ankara Agreement
Anti-Russian Acts
Anti-Semitic Acts
Appeal
Appeal abandoned
Appeal ambit following statutory review
Appeal announced allowed but Reported dismissed
Appeal hearings
Appeal rights

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s. 92(4)(a)

BA(Nigeria) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/119.html

AM (Somalia) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/114.html

Appealability
Appeals
Appeals procedure
Appeals Raising Article 3 & 8
Appeals without grounds
Appellant
Applicable immigration rules
applicable rules
Application of Edore
Application of Ekincin
Application of SK and DK
Apply from Kosovo
Approach
Approach to medical evidence
Approach to subsequent Tribunal decisions
Arguable thereafter
Arif
Armenian ethnicity

Article 8

Chikwamba (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 40 - The House of Lords held that it would only be comparatively rarely, certainly in family cases involving children, that article 8 appeals should be dismissed on the basis that it would be proportionate and more appropriate for the appellant to apply for leave to enter the United Kingdom from abroad.

E B Kosovo (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41 - The House of Lords considered the relevance of delay in the context of Article 8. Firstly, an applicant may during the period of any delay develop closer personal and social ties and establish deeper roots in the community than he could have shown earlier. The longer the period of the delay, the likelier this is to be true. Secondly, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal should consider whether, and to what extent, a delay in resolving his asylum claim, and the manner of its handling, were relevant when considering the proportionality of an immigration decision. Thirdly, delay may be relevant in reducing the weight otherwise to be accorded to the requirements of firm and fair immigration control, if the delay is shown to be the result of a dysfunctional system which yields unpredictable, inconsistent and unfair outcomes.

Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39 - The House of Lords held that section 65 of Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 requires the appellate authorities, in determining whether the appellant's article 8 rights have been breached, to take into account the effect of his proposed removal upon all the members of his family unit.

TK (Immigration Rules-policy-Article 8) Jamaica [2007] UKAIT 00025

Mayeka & Mitunga [13178/03] dated 12-10-2006 at ECHR level says that much [at 85].-

Sun Myung Moon [2005] UKIAT 00112 also deals with it at [43]-[45] & [68]

DM (Proportionality – Article 8) Croatia * [2004] UKIAT 00024

EA (Article 8 – entry clearance- delay) Iraq [2004] UKIAT 00236

SS (ILR - Article 8 - Return) Sri Lanka [2004] UKIAT 00126

Family life ( for the purposes of Article 8)

Keegan v Ireland 1994 18 E.H.R.R 342

Saini v Secretary of State for the Home department 1999 S.L.T. 1249

Nwokoye v Secretary of state for the Home department 2002 S.L.t 128

Gangadeen v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1998 Imm. A.R.106

Nisar Ahmed 2000 S.C.L.R 761

Mohammed Akhtar v Secretary of State for the Home Departmetn 2001 S. L. T. 1239

Art 8, para 317
Article 1 D
Article 14
Article 1F(c)
Article 2
Article 3

HK v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2006] EWCA Civ 1037
Court of Appeal, 20 July 2006: REFUGEES; CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT

Tribunal erred in rejecting clear and substantial evidence that asylum seeker faced breach of Article 3 ECHR if returned to Sierra Leone.

Article 3/HIV/"N" followed
Article 3: HIV
Article 3:2: Scope of regulations
Article 3:Suicide
Article 8

ZT v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)24/11/2005

Sub-heading: Serious illness, Availability of treatment, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: The appellant’s return to Zimbabwe was not a 'flagrant' or 'fundamental' breach of her rights or a disproportionate interference with her rights under Article 8 of the Convention, as she was not facing imminent death.

Djassebi (Hamidreza) (2) Mosayebi (Seyedehmasoumeh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)28/10/2005

Sub-heading: Asylum, Deterimental effect, Exceptional circumstances, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Issues: Evidence established by the asylum seekers had not met the criteria of exceptional circumstances sufficient to defeat the legitimate operation of the immigration control. The Secretary was entitled to conclude that their claims regarding infringement of their human rights were clearly unfounded.

Article 8: Family Life

Krasniqi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006)10/04/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seeker, Family life, Error of law, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: On considering the appellant’s close relationship with her partner, it was clear that her case was truly exceptional to make an otherwise lawful removal disproportionate.

Tozlukaya (Mehmet) (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006) 11/04/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seeker, Risk of suicide, Unfounded claim, Prolonged stay, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: The appellant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention was bound to fail and returning him and his family to Germany would not be an affront to fundamental humanitarian principles. However, removal of the appellant’s children would arguably constitute an interference with their right to private life under article 8 of the Convention.

Article 8: inconsistency
Articles 2 and 3
Articles 3 and 8
Articles 3/8 in medical cases
Ashkaelia
Ashkaelian
Ashkaelians
Ashraf
Assessing interference with private life
Assessment
Assessment Of Age
Assessment of credibility
Assessment of evidence
Assessment of medical evidence
Assessment of risk
Asylum
Asylum determinations
asylum grounds only
Asylum interview
At date of decision
Au Pairs
Availability
Availability of Entry Clearance Facilities
Aydogdu
Azerbaijan male
Azeris and mixed marriages

Hussain v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006)06/04/2006

: Asylum, Persecution, Jurisdiction, Error in law, Internal relocation, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Issues: The Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear the Secretary's appeal that had been made on a point of law under s.101 of the 2002 Act.

Ba'ath party
Ba'athist father
Background material
Baha'is
Bahai faith
Bajuni
Balancing
Bangladesh
Bantu
basis of appeal
Basis of reconsideration
BDK Members
Bedoon
Begedi
Benadiri
Benadiri Clan
Bensaid
Berbers
Best Practice
Bhutanese citizenship
Bias
Bidoon
Bihari
Bimaal clan
Blind person
Blood feud
Blood feuds
Bosnian Muslim
Breach of 1 child policy
Bribery
Bribes
Bucharest
Bujumbura area
Bulletins
Burden of proof
Burden of proof: effect ss 14-15 only
Burundi
CA
Cabinda
Call Witnesses
Cameroon Bamileke reluctant chief
camps
Cancellation refugee status: UNHCR Note
Care Proceedings
Carers concession
Case citation: details required
Caste
Catholic
Ceasefire
Certificate
Certificate & Remittal
Certification
Cessation
Cessation and exclusion
Cessation of conflict
Chaldo-assyrians
Change of circumstances
Chechen
Chechen war
Chechens
Chechnya deserter
Chechnya war
Chen
Chidren:settlement
Child
Children
Children: settlement
Christian
Christian apostates
Christian convert
Christian converts
Christianity
Christians
CIO
CIPU list not comprehensive
Citation of unreported decisions
Citizens Directive
Citizens Directive Article 3(2)
Citizens Directive; AP and FP applied
Citizenship
Clan member
Clans
Clarificatory Questions from IJs
Class
Collusion
Colombo
Commencement date
Commencement of enforcement action
Common threshold of risk
Communism
Communist party
Concession
Concession made by representative
Concession on DNA testing
conditional offer not acceptance
Conditions in Mosul
Conducive to the public good
Conduct of hearing
Conduct of previous solicitor
connection with sponsor
Conscientious objection: Convention reason?
Consequences
Consideration of evidence
Consideration of prior determination
Consideration of relevant factors
Considering policies
Contact
Content of adjudicator determination
Convention reason
Conviction
Cooperation
correction
Corroboration
Corroborative Evidence
Costs of statutory review
Country and individual circumstances
Country conditions
Country expert
Country Guidance Cases
Country information
Country Material
Country of habitual residence
Country of Nationality
Coup
Credibility
Credibility and psychiatric reports
Credibility assessment flawed
Credibility issues
criminal gangs
Cross border movement
Cross examination

Cuba

OM (Cuba Returning Dissident) Cuba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

curtailment of leave
Danian
Darfur
Date of Decision
Date of grant

Date of service

FS (Eritrea) [2007] UKAIT 00084 vs The Secretary of State for the Home
Department

Delay

Dependancy
Dependancy Alone Insufficient
dependants
Dependants of Absent Community Nationals
Dependency
Dependent relative
Depleted Uranium
Deportation

CW (Deportation – Huang – proportionality) Jamaica [2005] UKIAT 00110

CM (Deportation – Article 8) Jamaica [2005] UKIAT 00103

SE (Deportation – Malta – 2002 – General Risk) Eritrea CG [2004] 00295

MW (Deportation – Jamaica -conducive to the public good) Jamaica [2004] UKIAT 0017

AC (Deportation, Article 8, Appellant) Turkey [2004] UKIAT 00122

JN (Deportation _ Conviction _ Public Transport _ Proportionality) Kenya [2004] UKIAT 00009

BT (Deportation) Ethiopia CG [2002] UKIAT 06378

KO(Article 8-Deportation-Kehinde) Nigeria CG [2002]UKIAT 06038

EO (Deportation appeals: scope and process) Turkey [2007] UKAIT 00062

MG and VC (EEA Regulations 2006; “conducive” deportation) Ireland [2006] UKAIT 00053

AA (Involuntary returns to Zimbabwe) Zimbabwe [2005] UKAIT 00144

ES (Deportation pending on 2^nd October 2000) Ukraine [2006] UKAIT 00056

EO (Deportation appeals: scope and process) Turkey [2007] UKAIT 00062

Khan (Disputed Nationality - Removal Directions) Afghanistan * [2002] UKIAT 04412

Zeqaj (Removal Directions to Wrong Country) Albanian * [2002] UKIAT

00232

Jazayeri (Removal Directions) Iran * [2001] UKIAT 00014

Descendant
Deserters
Desertion
Destitution
Detention
Detention records

Following the case of Luamba v SSHD it was disclosed by SSHD that since April 2006 caseowners within the HO had been instructed verbally and by email by senior civil servants that notwithstanding the criteria for detention in published policy, they were to operate a presumption in favour of detaining foreign national prisoners at the expiry of their sentence until removal/release on bail.

On another point, make sure you check whether your client has been afforded his regular monthly reviews in accordance with Home Office policy as, if not, this may found a JR claim in itself. This is an issue that we are going back on - depending on the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision in R (SK). Also, if your client is a deportee, check whether he has been subject to the previously undisclosed policy presumption in favour of detention in deportation cases. We are going back on this issue as well and it is a point being raised in various other cases at the moment.

Deterioration of mental state
Determination on merits
Determination without hearing
Dev Sol

declaration of incompatibility
Devaseelan Applied
Direction
Directions
Disability
disabled sponsor
Disabled woman
Discontinuance by Secretary of State
Discretion
Discretionary leave
Discrimination
Disobedience to orders
Disputed nationality
Disputed Somali nationality
Distinguished
Divorced women
Djebari decision
Documentary evidence
Documentation
Documents Unreliable and forged
Documents: must send both parties
Domestic violence
Domestic Violence: evidence and procedure
Domestic worker
Double Jeopardy

DP3/96
DP3/96 -
Draft evaders
Draft Evasion
Draft related risks updated
Draft-Related Risk Categories Updated

DRC

Dublin Convention

Ahmadzai (Asif) (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006)01/03/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum claim, Transfer from one Member State to another, Prejudice, Lapse of time, Unexplained delay, Dublin Convention

Issues: Under the Convention, the Secretary was not required to transfer the claimant to Austria. Moreover, a combination of the inordinate delay and the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 made the transfer unlawful.

Dual nationality
Due process
DUP
EC law
ECHR
ECO
ECO assessment of language ability
ECO investigation
ECO's Duties per D S Abdi
ECO: post-decision evidence
ECRE guidelines
Edore and Razgar
EDP / UEDP members
Educated women
EEA
EEA - jobseeker
EEA discretion
EEA discretionary permit
EEA national: leave to remain?
EEA nationals
EEA Regs
EEA Regulation 10(1)
EEA Regulations
EEA Regulations 2000
EEA Regulations 2006
EEA Regulations: family permit
EEA Regulations: Five years' residence
EEA; “direct descendants” includes grandchildren
Effect
Effect Of Deletion
Effect of directions
Effect of following AE
Effect of IDI September 2004
Effect of Mibanga
Effect of previous linked determination
Effect Of Section 85(4)
effect on asylum-related appeals
Effect on proportionality
Ekinci Applied
Elderly
ELF-RC
Eligibility for amnesty
ELR
ELR mistake
Employment
Entry clearance

EA (Article 8 – entry clearance- delay) Iraq [2004] UKIAT 00236

Error of law

Rodriguez-Torres (Marco) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)10/11/2005

Sub-heading: Asylum, Persecution by the State, Deterioration in mental health, Exceptional cases, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: Although the Secretary had not used the phrase 'error of law', the substance of his complaint was clear and he had identified the errors of law that the Tribunal was asked to consider.

Eritrea
Eritrean
Escape
Escapes
Ethiopia
Ethiopian
ethnic groups
Ethnic Palestinian
Ethnic Russian
Ethnic Serb
Ethnicity
EU Accession
EU national
EU national - self-sufficiency
EU national ; self-sufficiency
EU Spouse
EURODAC
Evidence
Evidence expected
Evidence Not Probative Is Irrelevant
Evidence not received
Evidence not relied on before ECO
Evidence of risk
Evidence part heard
Evidence required
ex-CUKC with UK-born grandmother
Ex-military
Ex-minor
Ex-policeman
Examination of scars
Exceptional case?
exceptionality
excluding costs
Exclusion
Exclusion clause
Exclusion of evidence
Exempt From Draft
Exercise
Expert evidence
Expulsion cases
Extended family
extended family members

Look at McCarthy [2008] EWCA Civ 641. Essentially says must have exercised EU rights to qualify. As a consequence, may depend what you were doing for 5 years.

Extension of time for appealing
Extortion by Maoists
Extra statutory recommendations generally undesirable
Extra-Territorial Effect
Eyle
Fact finding
Fact-Specific
Facts
Failed asylum seeker
Failed asylum seekers
Failure to assess witnesses evidence
Failure to consider Evidence
Fair hearing
Fair trial
Fairness
False charges
False nationality appeal
Falun Gong

Family reunion

DL (DRC) & the Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria v The Entry Clearance Officer, Karachi [2008] EWCA Civ 1420 (18 December 2008)

Family ILR Exercise

AL (Serbia) and Rudi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42 - The difference in treatment effected by the Family Indefinite Leave to Remain concession between children entering the United Kingdom with their families and those entering without were justified, and the concession did not offend against the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.14.

Family life

Family member

KA (EEA: family permit; admission) Sudan [2008] UKAIT 00052 - Article 5 of the Citizens Directive (Council Directive 2004/38/EC) does not confer an unqualified right of pre-entry, entry or residence on family members of a Union citizen exercising Treaty rights. Family members are required to have an entry visa in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 or, where appropriate, with national law. The United Kingdom has chosen to impose a visa requirement in the form of an EEA family permit regime, and hence if a family member arrives at a United Kingdom border without an EEA family permit and seeks admission, he must satisfy the requirements of regulation 11 of the 2006 Regulations. Whether a person is entitled to a right of admission under regulation 11 depends on his being able to produce relevant documentation on that occasion (or within a reasonable period of time thereafter).
Family reunion
Family Visit

SB (family visit appeal: brother-in-law) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00053 - The relationship of brother (or sister-)-in-law between an appellant and sponsor falls within the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations 2003 where the sponsor is the sibling of the Appellant's spouse but not where the appellant's brother or sister is married to the sponsor in the UK.
FAQs
FARC
FARC Convention Reason
Fast Track
Fatah
Father's access to child
Fayli-kurds
Fazilet
Fear
Fear of GIA
Female at risk
Female BOCs
Female court
Female draft evader
Female eyle
Female genital mutilation
Female minor
FGM
FGM - Cameroon
Findings of Fact

Y v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1223. A tribunal of fact is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality. Evidence may therefore be rejected if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.

Inherent improbability in the context of asylum cases was discussed at some length by Lord Brodie in Awala –v- Secretary of State [2005] CSOH 73. At paragraph 22, he pointed out that it was "not proper to reject an applicant's account merely on the basis that it is not credible or not plausible. To say that an applicant's account is not credible is to state a conclusion" (emphasis added). At paragraph 24, he said that rejection of a story on grounds of implausibility must be done "on reasonably drawn inferences and not simply on conjecture or speculation". He went on to emphasise, as did Pill LJ in Ghaisari, the entitlement of the fact-finder to rely "on his common sense and his ability, as a practical and informed person, to identify what is or is not plausible". However, he accepted that "there will be cases where actions which may appear implausible if judged by…Scottish standards, might be plausible when considered within the context of the applicant's social and cultural background".

Findings on sexuality
Fine paid
Fingerprint evidence
fingerprint match
First Decision Nullity
First Stage Reconsideration
FIS Amnesty
FMA

New guidance (FGM - Risk and Relocation) Kenya

VM (FGM-risks-Mungiki-Kikuyu/Gikuyu) Kenya CG [2008] UKAIT 00049

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2008/00049.html

Forced marriage
Foreseeable maintenance by pregnant sponsor
Former KAZ
Former solicitors' alleged misconduct
Formerly exempt persons: leave
Fraud
Freedom of religion

Freedom of Speech/Assembly

Barendt, Free Speech and Abortion [2003] PL 580

Cram, A Virtue Less Cloistered: Courts, Speech and Constitutions (Hart 2002)

Cram, Hate Speech, the First Amendment and cross burning in the USA (2003) Communications Law 389

Geddis, ‘If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out’: R v BBC, ex p Prolife Alliance (2003) 66 MLR 885

Geddis, Free Speech Martyrs or Unreasonable Threats to Social Peace? - ‘‘Insulting’’ Expression and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 [2004] PL 853

Hare, Inflammatory Speech: cross-burning and the first amendment [2003] PL 408

Hare, Methods and Objectivity in Frees Speech Adjudication: Lessons from America [2005] ICLQ 49

Lewis, Political Advertising and the Communications Act 2003: Tailored Suit or Old Blanket? [2005] EHRLR 290

Mead, Strasbourg succumbs to the temptation ‘‘To make a God of the Right of Property’’ [2003] J Civ. Libs 98

Macdonald and Jones, The Law of Freedom of Information (OUP 2003)

Munro, The value of Commercial Speech [2003] CLJ 134

Rozenburg, Privacy and the Press (OUP 2004)

Sanderson, Is Von Hannover a step backward for the substantive analysis of speech and privacy interests? [2004] EHRLR 631

Sedley, The Rocks or the Open Sea: Where id the Human Rights Act heading? (2005) Law and Society 3

Scott, A Monstrous and Unjustifiable Infringement? Political Expression and the Ban on Advocacy Advertising (2003) 66 MLR 224

Sottiaux, Anti-Democratic Associations: Content and Consequences in Article 11 Adjudication [2004] (4) Netherlands Human Rights Quarterly

Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name: An Affirmative Reading of the ECHR [2004] Netherlands Human Rights Quarterly

Tugendhat and Christie (eds), The Law of Privacy and the Media (OUP 2002) (150 page Supplement 2003)

Fresh credibility evidence
Fresh Evidence

MA (Fresh evidence) Sri Lanka * [2004] UKIAT 00161

R (Baydak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The secretary of state had been fully entitled to refuse to treat representations made by an asylum seeker as a fresh claim where there was no evidence that the asylum seeker was at risk of persecution in his home area so that the question of risk at the return airport did not arise

Fresh evidence at hearing
Funding
Funding Orders
Galgale
Gang wafare
Garde a vu
Gashgai nomads
GBTS
GBTS info
GBTS Records
Gedo
Geledi
Gender guidelines
General
General Principles
General risk
General situation
Genocide survivors
Genuine transfer of parental responsibility
Germany
GIA
Goa
Good reasons to consider
Gorani
Gorani in Kosovo
Gozinesh
Grounds of appeal: late amendment
Guidance
Guidance on application of Devaseelan
Guidelines
Gulu detainee
Gurkas
HADEP
Hamilton
Hamtaseh
Hassan
HC 395 para 284: "six months"
HC395 para 317: joint sponsorship
HC395 para 320
Health
Healthcare
Hearing
Hearing Interpreters
Helical treatment
Hezbe Islami
Highly skilled migrant - student switching
Highly skilled migrants: legitimate expectation
Hindu
HIV
HIV Positive
HIV/AIDS
Hizb-i-Islami
Holidaymakers
Home Office concessions
Home Office conviction - Consideration of
Home office policy
Home Office policy - consideration of
Homosexual

6. In order to understand this submission, and indeed the decision in J, it is necessary to say something about the situation of homosexual men in Iran. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran. Men who wish to have an active homosexual sex life must do so in private and avoid their sex life coming to the attention of the authorities. If it does, they risk suffering punishment that may amount to cruel or inhuman treatment or worse. The position was summarised by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in its country guidance decision RM and BB (Homosexuals) Iran CG [2005] UKIAT 00117 as follows:

123. We consider that we can properly conclude from the evidence that it is most unlikely, given the statistics and the problems of proof, that the death penalty for sodomy is anything other than an extremely rare occurrence. It is clear however that, and here we are in agreement with paragraph 24 of Ms Rogers summary of the evidence, those guilty of immoral acts under Article 147/115 and Tafkhiz under Article 121 face harsh punishments which can include long prison sentences up to six years and up to one hundred lashes. We remind ourselves of what Mr Kovats accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State that a sentence of lashing would be such as to give rise to a breach of Article 3 rights. Although we agree with Mr Kovats that the interest of the Iranian authorities in homosexual offenders is essentially focused upon any outrage to public decency, it is in our view clear that the authorities would not simply ignore, as Mr Kovats suggested they might in certain situations, reports made to them of persons carrying out homosexual acts albeit in private. If a complaint is brought to the authorities then we are satisfied that they would act upon that to the extent that they would arrest the claimed offenders and question them and thereafter there is a real risk that either on the basis of confessions or knowledge of the judge which might arise from such matters as previous history or medical evidence or the evidence of the person who claimed to have observed the homosexual acts, that they would be subjected to significant prison sentences and/or lashing.

124. Given that we consider therefore that there is a real risk that a person who comes to the authorities' attention for having committed an act falling within the relevant provisions of the code, it must follow that since this can be presumed to be known by those engaging in such acts, such actions would be likely to be carried out carefully. We have not been addressed on the issue of discretion and whether people engaging in such acts can be expected to act discreetly, which was considered by the Australian High Court recently, in Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration[2003] HCA 71. That is another argument for another day and we would not wish this determination to be interpreted as imposing a requirement of discretion, but rather a recognition that in the legal context in which homosexuals operate in Iran it can be expected that they would be likely to conduct themselves discreetly for fear of the obvious repercussions that would follow. We also consider, bearing in mind the consequences for persons prosecuted successfully for such actions, that Adjudicators should view with healthy scepticism claims that family members or friends or neighbours reported such actions to the authorities. Given the severity of the consequences we consider that proper caution should be exercised in assessing claims that people came to the attention of the authorities in such ways. This must be particularly so in the case of family members and friends. In our view, it is the case that homosexual acts carried on in private between consenting adults are most unlikely to come to the attention of the authorities and it is the case, and we think it is common ground, that the authorities do not seek out homosexuals but rather may respond to complaints of consensual homosexual activity being carried on. That then is the context in which these appeals must be decided.

Honour killings
HR
HR breach
Huang
Human rights

Human Rights Act

Bonner, Fenwick and Harris-Short, Judicial Approaches to the Human Rights Act [2003] ICLQ 350

Clayton, Judicial Deference and ‘‘democratic dialogue’’ [2004] PL 33

Craig, The Human Rights Act, Article 6 and Procedural Rights [2003] PL 753

Davis, Human Rights and Civil Liberties (Willan Publishing 2003)

Hoffman and Rowe, Human Rights in the UK (Longman 2003)

Edwards, Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act (2002) 65 MLR 859

Ewing, The Futility of the Human Rights Act [2004] PL 829

Feldman, The Impact of Human Rights on the UK Legislative Process [2004] Stat LR 91

Fenwick, Clashing Rights, the Welfare of the Child and the Human Rights Act (2004) 67 MLR 900

Jowell and Cooper (eds.), Delivering Rights: How the Human Rights Act is Working (Hart 2003)

Lester, The Human Rights Act 1998 – Five Years On [2004] EHRLR 258

Lord Irvine, The Impact of the Human Rights Act: Parliament, the Courts and the Executive [2003] PL 308

Kavanagh, The Elusive Divide between Interpretation and Legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 (2004) OJLS 259

Kavanagh, Unlocking the Human Rights Act: ‘‘The Radical’’ Approach to Section 3(1) [2005] EHRLR 260

Klug, Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act 1998 [2003] EHRLR 125

Leyland, The Human Rights Act and Local Government: Keeping the Courts at Bay [2003] NILQ 136

Masterman, Section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998: binding domestic courts to Strasbourg?

[2004] PL 725

McDermott, The Elusive Nature of the Public Function (2003) 66 MLR 113

Nicol, Statutory interpretation and human rights after Anderson [2004] PL 274

O’Cinneide, Democracy, Rights and the Constitution – New Directions in the Human Rights Act Era [2004) CLP 175

Pedain, The Human Rights Dimension of the Diane Pretty case [2003] CLJ 181

Plowden and Kerrigan, Advocacy and Human Rights (Cavendish 2002)

Starmer, Two Years of the Human Rights Act [2003] EHRLR 14

Steyn, Dynamic Interpretation amidst an orgy of Statutes [2004] EHRLR 245

Steyn, Deference: A Tangled Story [2005] PL 348

Stone, Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights (OUP 2004), 5^th edition

Sunkin, Pushing Forward the Frontiers of Human Rights Protection: The Meaning of Public Authority under the Human Rights Act [2004] PL 643

Wadham and Taylor, Bringing More Rights Home [2002] EHRLR 714

Wadham and Mountfield, Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 (OUP 2003), 3^rd edition

Human rights appeal
Human Rights Inarguable
Human rights unarguable
Human Rights?
Hutus
IAF
Identifying Issues
IDI
IFA
Ignorance of clan structure
Ill health
Ill-treament by authorities
illegal
Illegal departure
illegal departures
illegal employment
Illegal entrant: leave to enter
Illegal exit
ILR
IMIK
Immigration
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Immigration rule 57 (ii) (b)
Immigration rules

Imprisonment in UK
in country implications
In-country Appeal
Inability to comply
Inability to make entry clearance application
Including Coptic Christians
Income support
Indefinite leave sought
independant life
India
Individual
Informers
Insurmountable Obstacle?
Intention to co-habit: "intervening devotion"
Intention to leave
intention to work
Interests of justice
Interests of the state
Internal displacement
Internal Flight
Internal flight alternate
Internal flight alternative
Internal flight to south

Sedley LJ in MOHAMAD DAOUD [2005] EWCA Civ 755 at para 12:

"Internal relocation is not, as Home Office presenting officers seem
often to think it is, a throw-away submission in case other arguments
fail. It is a serious and frequently problematical issue, requiring
proper notice, proper evidence and proper argument, and it is governed
by legal tests to which this court has more than once devoted
attention."

International reaction
Interpretation
Interventions
Interview through interpreter
Interviewer as advocate: unfair?
involuntary returns
Involuntary returns to Zimbabwe
Iran
Iraq

EA (Article 8 – entry clearance- delay) Iraq [2004] UKIAT 00236

Israel
Israel - Gaza
Israel check points
Issue of risk of suicide in UK and country of origin
IWCP
J Applied
Jaaji Clan
Jamaica
Januzi applied
Jehovah's witness
Jewish & Muslim marriage
Jewish activist
Jeyachandran
Journalist
Journalists
Jurisdiction
Jursdiction - Rule 62(7)
KAA
Kabul
Kashmiri
Kasolo
Kehinde
Kenya
Kenyan Asian
KF applied
KhaD
Khartoum
Khartoum an option
Kibajuni speaker
Kidnapping
Kikuyu
Kirundi/Buyenzi
KK confirmed
KK followed
KLA
KMDJ
Knowledge of Kirundi
Known political opponent
Korovilas report
Kosovo
Kreish ethnicity
KRG
Kurd
Kurd-PKK
Kurds
Kurundi
Kwok On Tong
Kyrgyz woman
Landmines
Language ability?
Lari ethnicity
Late Evidence
Late filing
Late reliance on fresh evidence
Late service of respondent's notice
lawful employment
Leave to Appeal
Leave to remain
Legitimate expectation

Bakhtear Rashid [2005] EWCA Civ 744
Lekstaka
Length of stay
Lesbians
Lissouba Region
Lone women

Long residenceOS (10 years’ lawful residence) Hong Kong [2006] UKAIT 00031
AIT Reported

Lord's Resistance Army
Losing health improvement
Lost record of proceedings
Low level
Low level ELF
Low level members
LRA
LTTE
LTTE area
Luandan
Macedonian ethnic group
Mafia
Mahmood
Maintenance

AM (Ethiopia) (2008) EWCA Civ 1082

Amjad Mahmood v ECO

Majority clan can protect
Malta
Manastry
Maoist
Maoists
Marriage
Marriage of convenience
Married Women
maximum 12 months work
Maximum Period
May 2004 ECRE - risk categories too widely drawn
MCDDI
McDowall
McDowell Report
MDC
MDC - low level member
MDC supporter
meaning and effect
meaning and extent
Meaning of 'Dependent'
Meaning of 'subsisting'
meaning of “family unit”
Meaning of ILR
Meaning of significant prospect
meaning of spouse
Medical and corroborative evidence
Medical conditons for children
Medical evidence
Medical facilities
Medical report
Medical treatment
Medical Treatment of "finite" duration
Members and Family
Members generally at risk
Membership of a particular social group
Membership of Cambio 90
Membership of political group
Mental Health
Mental illness
Michigan guidelines
Midgan
Military serviceAriaya (Abreham Gebrenous) (2) Sammy (Sirak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006) 08/02/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seekers, Compulsory military service, Risk of persecution, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: The Tribunal had rightly concluded that the asylum seekers would not be perceived as draft evaders and were therefore at no real risk of being ill treated or persecuted on their return to Eritrea.

Minor
minorities
Minority
Minority church members at risk
Minority clans
Minority group
Minors
mistake
Mistake of fact
Mixed ashkaelians ethnicity
Mixed ethnicity
Mixed Ethnicity - Albanian/Kosovo
Mixed ethnicity relationship
Mixed marriage
Mixed marriages Roma-Albanian
Mogadishu
Monrovia
Moslem
Mosul
Movement for democratic change
Mozu
Mungiki
Mungiki - not a religion
Muslim
Muslim - Christian conflict
Muslim Women
Mut'a or sighe
National passport: re-availment of protection
National records
National service
Nationality
Natural justice
Naturalisation

New evidence

New legislation

From The TimesJune 2, 2008

Immigration rule change
Court of Appeal

Published June 2, 2008

MO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for Home Department

Where no transitional provisions existed, applications made under a previous regime of rules would be adjudged under the current replacement rules.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Richards) so held in a reserved judgment on April 10, 2008, when dismissing the appeal of MO from the dismissal by an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, on February 25, 2007, of his appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State of the Home Department of his application to remain in the United Kingdom as a postgraduate doctor.

The application was made on January 17, 2006, under Immigration Rules HC 299 which were replaced, on April 3, 2006, by HC 1016 severely restricting the scope of overseas doctors staying as postgraduates.

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON said that here there were no transitional provisions, in the sense that HC 1016 came into effect in total replacement of HC 299 on the date on which it was made; in this case the rule-maker was the Home Secretary.

While some cases were shown in which the effects of changes in immigration rules had been expressly delayed, and the former regime retained in force during that period, it was impossible to demonstrate that it should be implied in cases where it was not expressly stated.

The immigration rules, odd though they were as a rule-book, clearly had some legal force. The secretary of state was formally constrained by them at any given time. Immigration judges had to apply them when hearing appeals.

NGO worker
Nhundu and Chiwera
Nigeria
No appeal
No basis for decision
No Discretion
No Fresh Evidence
No funding order
No general restriction on departure
No hearing
No hearing; compliance with Rules
No in-country right of appeal
No infringement
No legitimate expectation
No persecution
No political profile
No Power to review leave
No presenting officer
No protected family life
No real risk
No retrospective cancellation of leave
No retrospective effect
No Risk
No risk in removal country
No risk of double punishment
No risk of re-trafficking
No risk on return to Afghanistan
No substantive consideration
Non appearance of claimant
Non overt - homosexual
Non-compliance with directions
Non-Jewish
Non-Kurdish speakers in KAA
Non-Luandan
Non-recognised adoptions: unlawful discrimination
Non-state actors
Non-state actors: Acero-Garces disapproved
Non-traditional evangelical group
North Mitrovica
Not a qualified worker
Not at general risk
Not At Risk
Not family visit
Not generally at risk
Not legal but no real risk
not oral evidence
Not risk per se
Not undue harshness
Not within Shala
Notice of decision
Notices required
NS Case
Nufus Card
nullity assessment
Objective evidence
Objective situation
Objectivity
Obligation to investigate
Occupation
Occupied Territories

OLF and MTA
OLF Members and Sympathisers
OM distinguished
One child policy
Only loser can appeal
Operational Guidance
Operational Guidance Note 2001
Opposition activities
Orthodox Jew
Osu - Igbo
Other Grounds
Other information systems
Out of country appeal
Out of time
Out of time appeals
Out of time permission application

YD (Turkey) v Secretary of State for Home Department (2006)08/02/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seeker, Jurisdiction, Application for permission to appeal, Extension of time, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Issues: (1) The court had jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal directions on an “out of time” application for permission to appeal. (2) The appellant could not be granted an extension of time and permission to appeal as an exceptional course was not justified.

Overstayers
Palestine
Palestinian
Palestinian Arabs
Palestinians
Palestinians: Article 1D
Palliative AIDS treatment
Para 159A(ii)
Para 289A/HC395
Para 317(iii) – no 3rd party support
para 317: in country applications
Para 317: mothers-in-law
Para 320 refusal; substantive rule?
Paragraph 206 HC 395
Paragraph 252
paragraph 276
Paragraph 297(i)(e): "sole responsibility"

TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): "sole responsibility") Yemen [2006] UKAIT 00049 ( 24 May 2006)

Emmanuel v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 69; Martin v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 71; Sloley v ECO, Kingston [1973] Imm AR 54; and Rudolph v ECO, Colombo[1984] Imm AR 84
Paragraph 298(iii)
Paragraph 340 of HC 395
Paragraph 60 (v): meaning of "including"
Paragraph 60(v): "passing" and "relevant"
Paramilitaries
Part 9 HC395
Particular social group
Partisan
Pashtun
Pashtuns
Passport renewal
Patriots
PDPA member
Peaceholding
Perceived bias
perceived collaborator
Perceived Taliban
Persecution
Persistent questioning by adjudicator
Personal
Personal Knowledge
Peru
PK
PKK
Plausibility
Pocket money from sponsor
Point of law
Point of return
Police
Police brutality
Police officer
Policies; executive discretions; Tribunal's powers
Policy
Policy concessions not Convention recognition
Political journalist
Political opinion
political oppositionists
Political writer
Post-decision evidence
Powers of adjudicators
Practice Directions
Practice on Reconsideration
Pragmatism
Pre-2000 Decision
Pre-commencement remittal
Pre-trial conditions
Preaching
Prejudice
Presevo Valley
Presevo Valley via Belgrade
Presidential note
Presumptions
Preventative measures
Previous claims
Prison
Prison condition
Prison conditions
Prison conditions-no risk
Prisoner

Prisoners' Rights

Borroks-Gordon and Bainham, Prisoners’ families and the Regulation of Contact [2004] J. Soc. Wel. & Fam. L 263

Creighton and King, Prisoners and the Law (Butterworths 2004), 3^rd edition

Foster, Case Analysis on Hirst v United Kingdom (No2) [2004] EHRLR 436

Foster, Prison Conditions, human rights and Article 3 ECHR [2005] PL 33

Lawson and Mukherjee, Slopping out in Scotland [2004] EHRLR 645

Lazarus, Contrasting Prisoners’ Rights: A Comparative Examination of England and Germany (OUP 2004)

Livingstone, Owen and Macdonald, Prison Law (OUP 2003) 3^rdedition

Owers, Prison Inspections and the Protection of Human Rights [2004] EHRLR 107

Padfield, Beyond the Tariff: Human Rights and the Release of Life Sentence Prisoners (Willan Publishing 2002)

Padfield et al, Discretion in the Criminal Justice System (Willan Publishing 2003)

Samuels, In Denial of Murder: No Parole (2003) Howard J Crim Justice 176

Shute, Punishing Murderers: Release Procedures and the ‘Tariff’ 1953-2004 [2004] Cim L. R. 873

R (Shaheen) v Secretary of State for Justice (QBD)

Where a British citizen who was both resident in and had a family in the Netherlands had been sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment for a drug-related offence in the United Kingdom, the secretary of state was reasonably entitled in the circumstances to refuse to consent to the prisoner's transfer to the Netherlands to serve the remainder of his sentence there

Private life
Procedure
Procedure rules
Procedure rules 2000: rules 30 and 33(2)
Procedure Rules 48(5) and 48(6)
Professional handwritten grounds not acceptable
proof of forgery
Proof of indirect racial discrimination
proof required
Proper ambit
Proper approach
Proper finding
Proper notice
Propiska
Proportionality
Proportionality appeal: assessment, not discretion
Proportionality not relevant
Prosecution
Prostitution
Protection
Prove Destitution
Provenance of fresh evidence

PSG

MP (Trafficking- sufficiency of protection) Romania [2005] UKAIT 00086

JO (internal relocation- no risk of re-trafficking) Nigeria [2004] UKIAT 00251

SB (PSG – Protection Regulations – Reg 6) Moldova CG [2008] UKAIT 00002 AIT reliance on Art 6(1)(d) of the Protection Regulations

Psychiatric
Psychiatric illness
Psychiatric report
Psychiatric treatment
Psychiatric/Psycological evidence only on abnormalities
PTSD
Public funds: housing
Public good
Public interest
Public interest not a fixity
Public interest proviso
PUK/KDP
Punishment
Purpose
Qualification Directive
Question of fact
Questioning
Queue jumping
R1 procedure
R297 (v)
Rabwah
Race Discrimination
Racial discrimination
Rahanweyn not a minority clan
Rape
Rape victims
Razgar Considered
Razgara Djali
RCD-FIS
Reading Previous Determination
Really serious consequences
Reasonable Period
Rebel activity: no background evidence
Recent developments
Reception On Return
Recognition elsewhere as refugee
Reconciliation with goverment
Reconsideration
Record of Proceedings
Records
Refugee
Refugee claim
Refugee's Family
Refugees' Family Policy
Refusal to allow cross-examination
Reg 6
Reg 8(3) EEA Regs 2006
Registration on relocation
Registration system
Regular Attendance
Regularisation Period
regulation 8
Rejection of child on gender grounds
Related claimants: Kimbesa explained
Release
Relevance of children to removal
Relevant risk factors
Reliance on photocopies
Reliance on unidentified sources
Religion
Relocation
Relocation of ex-President bedie
Relocation to Khartoum
Relocation to Khartoum?
Rely on SEF
Remedies
Remittal
Removal
Removal Directions
Removal Directions to Wrong Country
Removal directions to wrong destination
Removal to Eriteria of Ethiopia/Eritrean
Removals policy
Reply to Directions
Reported cases as evidence
Reporting restrictions
Representation
Reprisals
Requirements for indefinite leave
Residence
Respondent's notices
Restriction of submissions
Restrictions
Restrictions on cross-examination
Return
Return of Southern Sudanese
Return permissible
Return to Eritrea
Return to Monrovia
Return to South unduly harsh?
Returnees
returning asylum seekers
Returning citizens
returning dissident
Returning resident
Returning resident: scope of exception
Returning Sikhs and Hindus
Returning Students
Returns
Review of case-law
Review of current situation
Reviewed
Revocation of Residence Document
Rift Valley
Right of appeal
right of permanent residence
Rights of appeal
Rights of others
risk
Risk - Connections with Mobutu
Risk and relocation
Risk as failed asylum seeker
Risk at date of hearing
Risk categories
Risk categories reviewed
Risk Factors for Burmese Citizens
Risk for involuntary returnees
Risk from any political activity
Risk if "committed"
Risk in Kabul
Risk of imprisonment on return
Risk of persecution
Risk of removal
Risk on Return
Risk to homosexuals
Risk to RUF members
Risk: Domestic Violence
risk?
Risks in
Risks in KDP area
Risks on return
Rohingya Muslim
Role of HOPO
Roma
Roma in Kosovo
Roma-Munteanu
Roman-Catholic
RR
RUF
Rule 23
rule 23(5): respondent's duty
Rule 297(e):sole responsibility
Rule 298
Rule 30.1: When Reply Required
Rule 45
Rule 48 (5)
Rule 51(4)
Rule 59
Rule 60
Rule 62(7)
Rules
Rules 30(2) and 45(4)(c)
Russia
Russia / Chechen
Russian prison conditions
Rwanda prominent MDR family
Rwandan
Rwandan heritage
s.103D Funding Precluded
s.65 Appeal
s.83
s104(4)(b) of 2002 Act = application not limited
s92(4)(a): meaning of "has made"
s94 Certificate: Jurisdiction
Sab clan
Safe route
Safe third country
Safe/unsafe arrivals: No distinction
Safety in Kabul
Same-sex relationships
satisfactory progress
Scarring

RT is very dismissive of scars which can "only" be described as consistent. To be corroborative of anything (it is implied) they must be "highly consistent." The Irish High Court has taken a much more straightforward approach in S. -v- MJELR & Anor [2007] IEHC 305.
Schedules
SCNC
scope and process
Scope of appeal
Scope of evidence
Scope of remittals
Scope of s103A Reconsideration
SDF member/activist
Second Appeals
section 108 procedure
Section 3c
Section 65 1999 Act
Section 66(2) 1999 Act
Section 69(1) appeal
Section 8: commencement
Section 8: judge's process
Section 82(2)(d): interpretation and effect
Section 83(2) appeals
Section 85 (4) explained
Section 86(3) and (5)
Sections 69(3) 1999 Act
Sectors Based Work
Security
Security Forces
Seddon report
Self-sufficiency
self-sufficient person - proof
Senior members of the Democratic Party and their families at risk
Sentence
Sentenced by former regime
Separation from children
Separatist
Serious crime
Service as village guard
Service of determination
Service of notice of decision
Settlement

Secretary of state’ Objection

A (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)01/12/2005

Sub-heading: Non-political crimes, Adjudicator's discretion, New objection at appeal stage, Error of law, Refugee Convention, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Issues: On whether the Secretary was entitled to raise a new objection relating to the applicability of the Convention at the appeal stage, a new objection could be raised for the first time at the appeal stage only when the facts clearly pointed to an obvious error of law.

Seven year child concession
Sexual violence

Shekhal Gandhershe
Sierra Leone
Significance

Single female/ Single woman

Social group
Solicitors without instructions to withdraw
]Special needs
Spouse
Spouse - ELR
Spouse's pending claim: removal bar?
Spouses
Spouses: Marriage
Sri Lanka

NA's expulsion to Sri Lanka would be in violation of Article 3

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT / NA. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its lead Chamber judgment in the case of NA. v. the United Kingdom(application no. 25904/07).

The Court held unanimously that the applicant's expulsion to Sri Lanka would be in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,451 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses, less EUR 850 already received in legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in English

SS.82 & 83
Standard of Proof

Shaheen (Shabana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)02/11/2005

Sub-heading: Asylum, Standard of proof

Issues: The IAT had not erred in law in dismissing the Secretary's appeal, as the evidence submitted by the Secretary was unlikely to satisfy the requisite standard of proof or the requirements of E and R v SSHD [2004] EWCA Civ 49.

Standstill Clause
State Persecution
Stateless Nepalese: Refugee?
Statelessness
Statutory abandonment
Statutory review
Stigma
Strbac
Student
Student ability to follow course
Student Application
Student: IDI "warning" about progress
student; "satisfactory progress"

G Omerenma Obed & 7 Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 747 - The grant of clearance to enter the United Kingdom as a student did not confine the entrant to a particular course of study. The secretary of state no authority to impose conditions on a student entrant as to the course he was to follow. Further, failing an examination did not always negate the making of satisfactory progress in a course of study within the meaning of the Immigration Rules r.60(v).
Subesh
Subsequent decision : how far relevant?
Sudan

AY [Political parties - SCP - risk] Sudan CG [2008] UKAIT 00050 - In a country guidance case about the risk to political activists in Sudan, the AIT stated:
1. Opposition parties are allowed to function within relatively narrow parameters in Sudan; 2. The Sudanese authorities do not seek or even attempt to take action which could amount to persecution against all political opponents but in the main they seek to control by the use of fear and intimidation. Depending on the particular circumstances of an individual, they may resort to stronger measures, particularly against those actively engaged in building up grass roots democracy, working in support of human rights and involved in open criticism of the regime's core ideology and philosophy; 3. In general it will be difficult for ordinary members and supporters of the Sudanese Communist Party or any other political party to establish a claim for asylum. They will need to show that they have been engaged in specific activities likely to bring them to the attention of the adverse authorities such as active and effective local democratic activity or support for particular human rights activities. Whether any individual political activist is at risk will necessarily depend upon his individual circumstances set within the context of the situation as at the date of decision. This will include an assessment of the nature of the activities carried out and how they will be seen by the authorities; 4. The legal status of an opposition party has no significant bearing in itself on whether an individual is likely to be at risk of persecution. Political activities also take place under the guise of cultural associations
Sufficency of protecion
Sufficency of protection
Sufficency of protection in Kabul
Sufficiency of protection
Suicide
Suicide risks
Suicide/mental stability : legal requirements
Sunni extremists
Support
Support for family
Surendran
Surendran Guidelines
Surendran guidelines for adjudicators
Suspected militant
Svazas
Swahili speakers
Tamils
Teacher
Telephone relationship
Terrorism
Terrorist threat
Test
Test for bias
Threats from Salafists
Tibetan
Time Calculations
Time for Reply
Time Limits

Third Parties

AB (Third-party provision of accommodation) [2008] UKAIT 00018 (06/03/2008)

Timeous Appeal Treated As Late
Timing of decision
Timing of funding application
Torture and ill treatment
Totality of evidence
Town Tunnis regarded as Bravanese
Trafficking
Traitor

Truly Exceptional
Tuni
Tunni Torre
Turkey
Turkey GBTS info at borders
Tutsi
Tutsis added
UDPS
UDPS members
UFIN
UK national’s spouse
Ukraine
Umma
Unaccompanied minor
Unaccompanied Minors
Unauthorised departure
Under 12 Policy
Understandings to return to Kaz
Unduly harsh
Unexceptional
Unfairness
UNHCR
UNHCR advice
UNHCR letter
Unmarried
UNMIK
Unreported Decisions
Unreported determintaion
Unsigned interview notes
UP - FARC
Update
Update and corruption
Upgrade appeal
Upheld no valid appeal
Upheld SK
Use of N Judgment as a benchmark in ill-health cases
Use of Sharif name
Validation of UK Qualifications
Validity of Pakistani divorce
Variation of Course
Variation of grounds
Variation of leave
Vendetta
Viable Options
Victims of extortion
Victims of gang violence
Views of ECO
Virjon B applied
Visa applications
Visa facilities
Visaginas Church
Visit appeal
Visit visa: paper or oral?
Visitor
Void marriage
Voluntary return
Vulnerable female
Vulnerable group
Wani Applied
War crimes
War veterans
Warlord
Warlords
WC Considered
WCPI
Weak
Weight Attached
Well founded fear
which course?
WHM
Withdrawal

Glushkov, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department & Anor [2008] EWHC 2290 (Admin) (09 September 2008)

Witness
Witness corroboration in asylum appeals
Witness with refugee status
Woman
Women
Women as particular social group
Work permit holders' ILR
Work permit refusal not appealable

Workers
Workers' Family

Working holidaymaker

Wrong Immigration Rule

CP (Section 86(3) and (5); wrong immigration rule) Dominica [2006] UKAIT 00040

RM (Kwok On Tong: HC395 para 320) India [2006] UKAIT 00039

Yazidis

Young Chechen male
Young female

GK( Young Female _ Risk on Return) Rwanda CG [2004] UKIAT 00054

AA (Vulnerable Female – Article 3) Ethiopia CG [2004] UKIAT 00184

YS and HA Applied

Zimbabwe

RS (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA)

The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal had erred in confining its analysis of a human rights appeal by a Zimbabwean woman suffering from HIV to the health issues surrounding her return to Zimbabwe, when there was material on the general situation in Zimbabwe which required analysis. In the light of statements by the European Court of Human Rights in N v United Kingdom (26565/05) Times, June 6, 2007 accepting a broader approach to "humanitarian considerations", the IAT's approach could not be justified.