Regina (Ivanauskiene) v A Special Adjudicator: CA 31 Jul 2001

The applicant had sought asylum. Her case had been refused, according to the law as stated at that time, but the decision then binding on the adjudicator (Shah), had been reversed in the House of Lords. It had now been held that the women of a country could be seen, at law, as a persecuted group. She now appealed again, and the decision was set aside.


Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Rix


Times 18-Sep-2001, Gazette 20-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1271




Geneva Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951 Cmd 9197) and (1967 Cmnd 3906) article 1(A)(2)


England and Wales


AppliedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .

Cited by:

CitedDavoodipanah v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Jan-2004
Before the adjudicator, the respondent had conceded that the asylum applicant had good reason to fear persecution if returned to her home country. He sought to withdraw that concession at the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Held: It was not for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147650