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 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 .
      Ground 1 - The Judge failed to consider the appellant's age when he left Iran and claimed asylum. The Judge failed to make a decision as to whether the appellant should be treated as a vulnerable witness applying the Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010 ("the Guidance"). The Judge relied on plausibility in not accepting the appellant's account and failed to take into account the appellant's own evidence and the expert report that supported his account.
      Ground 2 - The Judge failed to consider the expert evidence of Dr Rebwah Fatah and or whether it corroborated the appellant's account.
      Ground 3 - The Judge misdirected herself in finding that the mental health diagnosis did not corroborate the appellant's account ( Mibanga v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 367 ).
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.