The claimant made a further claim for asylum after his first claim had failed and his appeal rejected. He claimed that as a Kurd, he would face arrest if returned to Turkey. His passport had had a false visa stamp attached.
Held: While the rules relating to admission of fresh evidence on appeal were less retstrictive in public law cases than under Ladd v Marshall, the documents sought to be relied upon here had the characteristics of forgeries, and the respondent’s decision which rejected them stood.
Judges:
Collins J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2117 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.214218