Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant, her husband and children are granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant, her husband or children. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
             The Appellant is a national of Sudan who claims to be at risk on return there on account of her actual or perceived political views and as the mother of daughters at risk of female genital mutilation ("FGM").
             It is also a matter of significant regret that the Appellant's as yet unresolved protection claim has now been pending for over six years. That is obviously not in the Appellant's interest, but for a protection claim to take so long to be resolved is also - particularly where there are, as set out below significant unexplained delays - contrary to the public interest, declared by Parliament in s.117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("the 2022 Act"), in maintaining effective immigration controls.
             The procedural chronology to the Appellant's asylum claim is as follows:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.