Category: Immigration

SL (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 11 Mar 2010

Ward, Jackson, Patten LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 225, [2010] INLR 651
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ngouh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 27-Aug-2010
The claimant, a Cameroon national, sought to challenge the refusal of indefinite leave to remain. He had served in the British Army in Iraq, and lived here for over ten years. However when serving he had been convicted of a minor sexual assault in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.402584

BA (Nigeria), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (PE) (Camaroon) v Same: CA 26 Feb 2009

The court was asked whether the right of appeal against the Home Office’s refusal to revoke a deportation order was exercisable from within the United Kingdom.
Held: The appeals succeeded. It was. The case presented by the Secretary of State required a gloss to be placed on plain words intended to honour international obligations.
Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Lloyd
[2009] EWCA Civ 119, Times 23-Mar-2009, [2009] 2 WLR 1370, [2009] INLR 284, [2009] 1 QB 686
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 82
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others SC 26-Nov-2009
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.304531

SB (Risk On Return-Illegal Exit) Iran CG: AIT 16 Dec 2009

(i) Events in Iran following the 12 June 2009 presidential elections have led to a government crackdown on persons seen to be opposed to the present government and the Iranian judiciary has become even less independent. Persons who are likely to be perceived by the authorities in Iran as being actively associated with protests against the June 12 election results may face a real risk of persecution or ill treatment, although much will depend on the particular circumstances.
(ii) Iranians facing enforced return do not in general face a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment. That remains the case even if they exited Iran illegally. Having exited Iran illegally is not a significant risk factor, although if it is the case that a person would face difficulties with the authorities for other reasons, such a history could be a factor adding to the level of difficulties he or she is likely to face.
(iii) Being a person who has left Iran when facing court proceedings (other than ordinary civil proceedings) is a risk factor, although much will depend on the particular facts relating to the nature of the offence(s) involved and other circumstances. The more the offences for which a person faces trial are likely to be viewed as political, the greater the level of risk likely to arise as a result. Given the emphasis placed both by the expert report from Dr Kakhki and the April 2009 Danish fact-finding report’s sources on the degree of risk varying according to the nature of the court proceedings, being involved in ongoing court proceedings is not in itself something that will automatically result in ill-treatment; rather it is properly to be considered as a risk factor to be taken into account along with others.
(iv) Being a person involved in court proceedings in Iran who has engaged in conduct likely to be seen as insulting either to the judiciary or the justice system or the government or to Islam constitutes another risk factor indicating an increased level of risk of persecution or ill treatment on return.
(v) Being accused of anti-Islamic conduct likewise also constitutes a significant risk factor.
(vi) This case replaces AD (Risk-Illegal Departure) Iran CG [2003] UKAIT 00107.
[2009] UKAIT 00053
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.384468

HJ (Homosexuality: Reasonably Tolerating Living Discreetly) Iran: AIT 10 May 2008

AIT It is a question of fact to be decided on the evidence of the appellant’s history and experiences as to whether a homosexual appellant ‘can reasonably be expected to tolerate’ living discreetly in Iran. Enforcement of the law against homosexuality in Iran is arbitrary but the evidence does not show a real risk of discovery of, or adverse action against, homosexuals in Iran who conduct their homosexual activities discreetly. The position has not deteriorated since RM and BB.
[2008] UKAIT 00044
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.268184