Mitting J said: ‘The question which I have to consider is whether on the assumed facts I have recited the claimant cannot, on any view, succeed or her claim is so wholly lacking in substance that it is bound to fail.’ and ‘I have found this a far from easy question to answer. This case, in my view, comes very close, indeed, to the ward line but for the features that I am about to identify I have no doubt that the Secretary of State’s certification was lawful, rational and should be upheld. The features that, in my view, just take this case out of that category are these.’
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1126 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Nadanasikamani v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Jan-2006
. .
Cited – Yogachandran, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Feb-2006
The applicant appealed rejection of his claim for asylum.
Held: ‘the claimant has wholly failed to demonstrate, even to the very low level of possibility which suffices to quash a certificate, that there is any risk to him if he is returned to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226112