There is no right of appeal against directions of a ‘technical’ nature in relation to the removal, such as the specifying of a particular ship or aircraft and other detailed ‘mechanics’ of return or ‘technical’ matters
Judges:
Sedley, Smith, Elias LLJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 426, [2010] WLR (D) 107
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – AM (Evidence – Route of Return) Somalia UTIAC 11-Feb-2011
UTIAC (i) In HH (Somalia) v Secretary of State [2010] EWCA Civ 426 at para 84 the Court of Appeal when referring to the Claimant raising a cogent argument that there might not be a safe route of return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408597