Last Updated: Friday, 07 October 2022, 16:32 GMT

United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

The Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) is a superior court of record and forms part of the Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. Its purpose is to hear and decide appeals against decisions made by the First-tier Tribunal in matters of immigration, asylum and nationality. Appeals are heard by one or more Senior or Designated Immigration Judges who are sometimes accompanied by non legal members of the Tribunal. Immigration Judges and non legal members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and together they form an independent judicial body. The former Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) was superseded by the implementation of the UTIAC in February 2010. Website: www.tribunals.gov.uk/immigrationasylum/utiac/index.htm
Selected filters: Cessation clauses
Filter:
Showing 1-2 of 2 results
PS (cessation principles) Zimbabwe [2021] UKUT 00283 (IAC)

16 December 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Zimbabwe

SB (refugee revocation; IDP camps) Somalia [2019] UKUT 00358 (IAC)

(1) In Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Somalia) [2019] EWCA Civ 1345, the Court of Appeal has authoritatively decided that refugee status can be revoked on the basis that the refugee now has the ability to relocate internally within the country of their nationality or former habitual residence. The authoritative status of the Court of Appeal’s judgments in MS (Somalia) is not affected by the fact that counsel for MS conceded that internal relocation could in principle lead to cessation of refugee status. There is also nothing in the House of Lords’ opinions in R (Hoxha) v Special Adjudicator and Another [2005] UKHL 19 that compels a contrary conclusion to that reached by the Court of Appeal. (2) The conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 was that the country guidance in MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) did not include any finding that a person who finds themselves in an IDP camp is thereby likely to face Article 3 ECHR harm (having regard to the high threshold established by D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 43 and N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39). Although that conclusion may have been obiter, it was confirmed by Hamblen LJ in MS (Somalia). There is nothing in the country guidance in AA and Others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia [2011] UKUT 00445 (IAC) that requires a different view to be taken of the position of such a person. It will be an error of law for a judge to refuse to follow the Court of Appeal’s conclusion on this issue.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Search Refworld