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 a decision of the Secretary of State dated 6 September 2010 to refuse to accept representations on behalf of the petitioner as a fresh claim for asylum.
[4] On 26 August 2010 the respondent issued directions to remove the petitioner from the United Kingdom for Afghanistan . It was arranged that the removal would take place by aeroplane, leaving from London Airport at 2200 hours on 7 September 2010 .
When a human rights or asylum claim has been refused or withdrawn or treated as withdrawn under paragraph 33C of these Rules and any appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending, the decision-maker will consider any further submissions and, if rejected, will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The submissions will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered. The submissions will only be significantly different if the content:
(ii) taken together with the previously considered material, created a realistic prospect of success, notwithstanding its rejection.
[13] The role of the court in petitions for judicial review concerning the application of Rule 353, has been analysed in number of decisions, in particular in the judgment of Buxton LJ in WM (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] Imm AR 337, in paras [10] and [11]:
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.