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.
Judicial Review of decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 2 and 6 September 2011 and 5 January 2012
[4] The Respondent issued Removal Directions to the Petitioner on 2 September 2011 for his removal from the United Kingdom on 7 September 2011 .
[6] With an eye to the outstanding Removal Directions, the Respondent replied by letter of the same date. She pointed out that it had been no part of the Petitioner's asylum claim that he feared persecution by the Congolese authorities. She did not consider the new material to be significant. She decided that taken together with the previously considered material it did not amount to a fresh claim in terms of Rule 353.
[7] On the same date the Petitioner raised these judicial review proceedings. As a result the Respondent did not remove the Petitioner on 7 September 2011 . When the proceedings were raised the only challenge was to the decision letter of 2 September 2011 . Subsequently the Petitioner amended the Petition to introduce a further challenge to the decision letter of 6 September 2011 .
[8] By letter dated 5 January 2012 the Respondent wrote to the Petitioner to explain why the further submissions made on 16 August 2011 and 6 September 2011 did not amount to a fresh claim:
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.