The court emphasised the limited nature of the IAT’s jurisdiction under the 2002 Act, which is now restricted to considering points of law only: ‘Since the IAT now has jurisdiction to determine only points of law, it cannot put itself in the position of the lower court and decide the whole of the case as it stood there. Unless the decision on the point of law determines the case on the basis of the facts already found below, the IAT has to remit.’
 EWCA Civ 481
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 101(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Sithokozile Mlauzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 7-Feb-2005
The applicant appealed against the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing asylum. She feared persecution if returned to Zimbabwe because of her membership of the opposition political party. The IAT had disturbed the adjudicator’s . .
Cited – HC v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged refusal of his asylum application saying that the court had failed to take account of the fact that as a homosexual moslem, he would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The IAT had not properly recognised that at . .
Cited – AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Jan-2007
The asylum claimant had said that he was a minor when his case was first considered, but to the IAT said that at the time of that hearing any error was no longer material since he had now attained 18.
Held: A court should be very reluctant to . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 April 2021; Ref: scu.224944