United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales)

The issues that arise on this appeal are whether the Upper Tribunal in OO (Algeria) wrongly equated persecution with a risk of being subjected to physical violence and also failed to consider, cumulatively, the impact of the treatment that gay men would face in Algeria. Further, the appeal raises the issues of whether it would be unduly harsh to require the appellant to relocate within Algeria or whether returning him to Algeria would amount to a disproportionate interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention given that he would conceal his sexual orientation if he returned to live in Algeria.

14 December 2020 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity | Countries: Algeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

whether the FTT and UT made a material error of law in failing to give weight to the fact that RS had escaped from custody

28 October 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Sri Lanka - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

24 May 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

the appropriate guidance for a decision-maker can be summarised as follows: i) Is the Claimant genuinely an Ahmadi? In answering that question the guidance set out in paragraph 5 of the headnote in MN is well expressed. ii) The next step involves an inquiry into the Claimant’s behaviour if he or she is returned to Pakistan. Will he or she actually behave in such a way as to attract persecution? In answering that question, the decision-maker will again consider all the evidence and will, where appropriate, expressly consider whether the behaviour claimed by the asylum-seeker is genuinely an expression of their religious belief and is an authentic account of the way they will behave if returned. iii) If the decision-maker’s conclusion is that the Claimant, if returned to Pakistan, will avoid behaviour which would attract persecution, then the decision-maker must ask the question why that would be so. Many possibilities arise. The individual may genuinely wish to live quietly, and would do so whether or not repression existed in relation to the expression of his or her Ahmadi faith. The individual may have mixed motives for such behaviour. If such a quiet expression or manifestation of genuine Ahmadi belief is merely the result of established cultural norms or social pressures, then it is unlikely there will be a basis for asylum. However, if a material reason (and not necessarily the only reason) for such behaviour will be to avoid persecution, then it is likely that the Claimant will have a valid claim for asylum. There is no requirement that public expression of Ahmadi religious faith, of a kind which is likely to attract persecution, should be of “particular importance” to the Claimant. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the test as laid down in HJ (Iran). To that extent, the guidance given in the body of MN (Ahmadis) Pakistan CG and in the headnote is misleading and should not be followed.

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The appeal raises two points of principle: first, the standard of proof applicable to the determination of whether a person qualifies for the status of a stateless person as defined in the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons ("the 1954 Convention”); and secondly, the relevance of a finding that a person is stateless to an assessment carried out pursuant to paragraph 390A of the Immigration Rules.

12 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Proof of nationality - Standard of proof - Statelessness | Countries: Guinea - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

whether acts may be sufficient to satisfy the threshold for exclusion from the Convention under Article 1F(c), where those acts were neither themselves completed or attempted terrorist acts, nor can they be shown to have led to specific completed or attempted terrorist acts by others.

26 April 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations - Exclusion clauses | Countries: Egypt - Jordan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland