AIT Rule 30 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 as amended by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2008, should be read in conjunction with rule 31(4)(c). If . .
(1) Rule 45 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 confers discretionary, procedural case management powers. It does not require the First-tier Tribunal to undertake evidence-gathering. Any direction given under rule 45 to the Secretary of State to seek out or validate evidence must be exercised sparingly and in a fact-sensitive way, bearing … Continue reading NA (UT Rule 45: Singh v Belgium) Iran: UTIAC 8 May 2014
UTIAC (1) In deciding an application for permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, a judge of that Chamber should consider carefully the utility of granting permission only on limited grounds. In practice, such a limited grant is unlikely to be as helpful as a … Continue reading Ferrer (Limited Appeal Grounds; Alvi) Philippines: UTIAC 1 Aug 2012
UTIAC (Entitlement To Represent: S.84) Bangladesh – (1) Section 84(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides that no person may provide immigration advice or immigration services unless he is a qualified person.(2) Section 82(2) provides that references to the provision of immigration advice or immigration services are to the provision of such advice … Continue reading RK v Secretary of State for the Home Department: UTIAC 5 Oct 2011
The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original determination which vitiated all findings of fact made … Continue reading Swash v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 26 Jul 2006
Appeal on preliminary finding as to timeliness under the rules. Judges: Sullivan J Citations: [2008] EWHC 1633 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.270897
The applicant sought asylum, saying that it would be unsafe to order his return. The issue before the House was as to when the need for protection should be assesed where, as here, there had been a series of appeals over time. Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘Common sense indicates that the final decision, whenever … Continue reading Saber v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 12 Dec 2007
The claimants said that rules which allowed an appeal tribunal to proceed in their absence when they were absent through no fault of their own, were unlawful in depriving them of a fair trial. The claimants had each moved house but their former solicitors had failed to notify the court. Held: There was no general … Continue reading FP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 Jan 2007
IAT This is a reported decision considering whether there is a difference of interpretation of the phrase ‘significant prospect’ in regulation 6(3) of The Community Legal Services (Asylum and Immigration Appeals) Regulations 2005 and of ‘real possibility’ in rule 26(6) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005. Held: in the majority of cases … Continue reading RS (Funding, Meaning of ‘Significant Prospect’ ) Iran: IAT 6 Oct 2005
Application for judicial review of listing decisions taken by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in relation to two appeals against decisions made by an entry clearance officer in Bangladesh. Judges: Jackson J Citations: [2006] EWHC 2127 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration, Administrative Updated: 23 … Continue reading Uddin and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 7 Aug 2006
1. R (Dirshe) v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 421, [2005] 1WLR 2685, is not authority for the proposition that where a claimant requests tape-recording of an interview, but that is not carried out, the record is inadmissible. 2. Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 has no application to the admissibility of asylum interview … Continue reading MB (Admissible Evidence; Interview Records) Iran: UTIAC 18 Apr 2012
UTIAC (1) In terms of the approach that a tribunal should adopt towards decisions of the Secretary of State in which dishonesty or deception is alleged against an applicant for leave to remain, the starting point should be, as the Court of Appeal in Adedoyin (formerly AA (Nigeria) v SSHD) [2010] EWCA Civ 773 have … Continue reading Shen (Paper Appeals; Proving Dishonesty): UTIAC 20 May 2014
UTIAC (1) A jurisdictional decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, contained in a determination made after the appeal has passed the duty judge ‘screening’ stage, is appealable to the Upper Tribunal: Practice Statement 3.4; Abiyat and others (Rights of appeal) [2011] UKUT 314 (IAC). (2) Where the First-tier Tribunal has refused to … Continue reading Ved and Another (Appealable Decisions; Permission Applications; Basnet) (Tanzania): UTIAC 27 Mar 2014
UTIAC Where an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal is made to the First-tier Tribunal outside the prescribed period, rule 24(4) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 requires that the First-tier Tribunal must make a decision on whether the application should be admitted. Latter UTJ, [2013] UKUT 467 (IAC) … Continue reading Mohammed (Late Application-First-Tier Tribunal) Somalia: UTIAC 18 Sep 2013
UTIAC Where permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been granted, but in circumstances where the application is out of time, an explanation is provided, but that explanation is not considered by the judge granting permission, in the light of AK (Tribunal appeal – out of time) Bulgaria [2004] UKIAT 00201 (starred) and the … Continue reading Boktor and Wanis (Late Application for Permission) Egypt: UTIAC 22 Nov 2011
Fairness of SIAC procedures Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this would not happen. Held: Though in each case, SIAC had considered special materials, the … Continue reading RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same: HL 18 Feb 2009
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
