The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring him to recognise the respondent as a refugee and to grant permissions accordingly. His ddecision to order her return had been contrary to a finding of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. . .
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for asylum and protection on human rights grounds. He said that if returned to Afghanistan he would face a real risk of serious harm. . .
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now subjected to a much more rigorous examination than others, and also that the arrangement put the respondent in … Continue reading European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another: CA 20 May 2003
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as visitors for six months. Both applicants subsequently applied for asylum on the ground that having been … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah: HL 25 Mar 1999
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such persecution, and the level of protection it was prepared to offer. The failure of state … Continue reading Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 7 Jul 2000
Where a conscientious civil servant was threatened by insurgents who sought to persuade her to use her position to their advantage, but that civil servants could not expected to receive the protection of her estate from such insurgents, the Convention would give her protection as a refugee for asylum. The position of government employees in … Continue reading Noune v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2000
A fear of persecution which was justified only historically, was insufficient to justify an asylum claim. The applicant must show justification for contemporary fears. The applicant had been granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK, but wanted full refugee status because of the additional rights that would bring. In each case an applicant had … Continue reading Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 6 Apr 1998
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the Convention. Held: When deciding whether an asylum applicant’s fear of persecution was … Continue reading Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran: HL 16 Dec 1987
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
A wife, afraid with cause of being stoned to death for adultery if she returned home, was part of ‘a particular social group’ within the Convention, and was entitled to claim asylum. Commenting on the unique complexity of such cases: ‘Its . .
Even the justified fears of being stoned to death for adultery did not create a particular separate group from which protection from persecution could be claimed in support of an application for asylum. A ‘social group’ for refugee applicants, had . .
(Australia) A claim to refugee status was made by a husband and wife who had come from China to Australia. They said that they feared sterilization under the ‘one child policy’ of China if they were returned.
Held: There is a general principle . .