Case Law

19 April 2023 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: Cameroon - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

18 April 2023 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Country of origin information (COI) - Elections - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The main determination in this case is whether harm amounts to persecution for one of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention. The Court considered country background of El-Salvador to assess and determine if the appellant has a well-founded fear/risk of persecution for reasons relating to membership of a particular social group and different political opinion.

15 December 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts of persecution - Asylum-seekers - EU Qualification Directive - Gang related violence | Countries: El Salvador - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(1) The duty of candour which applies in judicial review proceedings obliges the parties to disclose all material facts, including those which are or appear to be adverse to his case. (2) That duty also obliges the parties to make reasonable enquiries to identify such facts, so as to ensure that the judge dealing with the application has the full picture. (3) In practice, the duty of candour obliges an applicant’s legal representatives in Age Assessment Judicial Review proceedings to: (i) Ascertain what social media and other methods of communication are used by the applicant; (ii) Consider the relevant accounts with a view to ascertaining whether they contain any material which potentially undermines the applicant’s case; and (iii) Disclose any material which might be relevant to the case, including any material adverse to the applicant. (4) The duty is a self-policing one, but the Upper Tribunal might legitimately require a ‘disclosure statement’ from an applicant’s solicitor, confirming that the applicant has disclosed to them the details of any social media accounts that they hold and that the solicitor in question has undertaken a reasonable and proportionate search of those accounts in order to ensure that all documents relevant to the issues in the case have been disclosed. (5) When the Upper Tribunal considers an application for specific disclosure, it will be a highly material consideration that the applicant’s solicitor has made such a disclosure statement. (6) In order for the Upper Tribunal to make an order for specific disclosure, it is necessary for there to have been an application for the same; such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Instead, the test will always be whether, in the given case, disclosure appears to be necessary in order to resolve the matter fairly and justly. (7) An order for specific disclosure of material from an applicant’s social media accounts is likely to represent an interference with 2 their private life and it is necessary to consider the breadth of the disclosure required in order to decide whether a less intrusive measure might suffice.

27 October 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. In deprivation of citizenship appeals, consideration is to be given both to the sustainability of the original decision and also whether upon considering subsequent evidence the Secretary of State's maintenance of her decision up to and including the hearing of the appeal is also sustainable. The latter requires an appellant to establish that the Secretary of State could not now take the same view. 2. Decisions of the Upper Tribunal are binding on the First-tier Tribunal, not only in the individual case by virtue of section 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, but also as a matter of precedent.

28 June 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq.

22 April 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Kurd - Travel documents | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. This decision considers whether the appellant should be excluded from the protection of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Convention’) because there are serious reasons for considering that he committed crimes against humanity (Article 1F(a)) or in the alternative a serious non-political crime (Article 1F(b)) during his service in the Police d’Intervention Rapide (PIR) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

9 March 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Crimes against humanity - Exclusion clauses - International criminal law - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

3 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - Persons with disabilities - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Palestine, State of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The issue in the case focuses on the Defendant's determination of whether the Claimant is a child, as the effect of such a finding has an impact on a number of aspects of how he will be treated within the United Kingdom. The precise terms of the issue are themselves disputed: (1) The Claimant submits that his case is a challenge to the lawfulness of the decision of the Defendant, on 11 June 2021 ["the June determination"], that he was not a child. (2) The Defendant argues that these proceedings are, in fact, about their refusal to reassess the 11 June determination at some later date.

17 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: South Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. In an Article 3 "living conditions" case, there must be a causal link between the Secretary of State's removal decision and any "intense suffering" feared by the returnee. This includes a requirement for temporal proximity between the removal decision and any "intense suffering" of which the returnee claims to be at real risk. This reflects the requirement in Paposhvili [2017] Imm AR 867 for intense suffering to be "serious, rapid and irreversible" in order to engage the returning State's obligations under Article 3 ECHR. A returnee fearing "intense suffering" on account of their prospective living conditions at some unknown point in the future is unlikely to be able to attribute responsibility for those living conditions to the Secretary of State, for to do so would be speculative.

2 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland