In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants asserted that a legitimate expectation had been created. Held: The abiding principle which underpins the legitimate expectation … Continue reading Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 22 Nov 2005
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was manifestly unfounded. Held: Mental health was part of the respect for private life protected by article 8. … Continue reading Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc: HL 17 Jun 2004
. .
Application for judicial review of decisions by the Secretary of State certifying claims made on behalf of the claimant as manifestly unfounded in accordance with section 72(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. . .
The claimant challenged the respondent’s certificate that his appeal was manifestly unfounded.
Held: The certificate was wrongly given. . .
References: [2004] UKHL 27, [2004] 3 WLR 58, Times 21-Jun-04, [2004] 2 AC 369, [2004] 3 All ER 821, [2004] INLR 349 Links: House of Lords, Bailii Coram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc: HL 17 Jun 2004
Challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State by which he certified the claimant’s appeal under the Human Rights Act 1998 as manifestly unfounded pursuant to section 72(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. . .
Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language . .
