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
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
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