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 claimant has been granted anonymity. He is to be referred to in these proceedings as A S M and his litigation friend as A M. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the claimant or any member of his family, which would be likely to lead members of the public to identify the claimant . Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
             The Secretary of State appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing the claimant's appeal against her decision on 4 April 2022 refusing international protection pursuant to the Refugee Convention or leave to remain on human rights grounds. He is a citizen of India.
             The claimant appears by his litigation friend (his son), and an anonymity order applies to both of them.
             For the reasons which we now give, we find that the Secretary of State's appeal cannot succeed, and we uphold the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
             The claimant entered the UK in March 2006 as a visitor, but overstayed when his leave expired. He made two unsuccessful asylum claims before the present one. His original claim for international protection was based on his membership of the Congress Party and circumstances around the 1999 elections in India. That is not pursued before us.
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.