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 (LK) is 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. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
                  The Respondent challenged the finding of statelessness on the basis that the Appellant (who bears the burden of proof in this regard) has to show not only that he is not in fact an Angolan national but also, as a matter of law, that he is not entitled to that nationality. It was on the basis of the Judge's failure to consider that latter question that I found an error of law (see in particular [29] and [30] of my error of law decision).
                  Having accepted that the Respondent had made out her grounds of challenge, I set aside the part of Judge Clarke's decision allowing the appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds. However, since there was no cross-appeal by the Appellant in relation to the dismissal of his appeal on protection, humanitarian protection and Article 3 ECHR grounds, I preserved the findings made by Judge Clarke and the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal on those grounds.
                  Having set aside [63] to [64], [67] to [68] and [99] onwards of Judge Clarke's decision, I gave directions for the appeal to come back before me for a resumed hearing with directions for the Respondent to file with the Tribunal a decision dated 31 March 2016 refusing the Appellant's application for leave to remain as a stateless person, for the Appellant to provide further evidence if he wished to do so and for a resumed hearing.
                  So it was that the appeal came back before me on 24 January. I need say no more about the Respondent's decision dated 31 March 2016. That was filed with the Tribunal albeit somewhat belatedly but, as Ms Gilmour accepted, the application for leave to remain as a stateless person was refused only on the basis that the Appellant is the subject of a deportation order and is therefore not entitled to leave on that basis.
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.