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.
This has been a remote hearing to which both parties have consented. The form of remote hearing was video by Skype (V). A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. I did not experience any difficulties, and neither party expressed any concern, with the process.
This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. However, for convenience I will refer to the parties as they were designated in the First-tier Tribunal.
The appellant is a citizen of Russia with Armenian heritage who was born in March 1991. In October 2004 he entered the UK with his father and was joined shortly thereafter by his mother and brother.
The appellant's mother applied for asylum with the rest of the family (including the appellant) as her dependents. Although the asylum application was refused, in 2007 an appeal was successful. In a decision promulgated on 16 April 2007, a panel comprising of Immigration Judges Carroll and Herbert found that:
31.We find also that there is no internal flight option available to the appellant and her family. All of the objective evidence points to the widespread nature of the violence xenophobia from which they have suffered...."
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.