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.
I make an anonymity order pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on the 13 th March 2019. He appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 5 th June 2018 to effect a cessation of his refugee status under Article 1C (5) of the 1951 Refugee Convention and paragraph 339A(v) of the Immigration Rules. On the 7 th August 2018 his protection and human rights claim was refused and the decision to treat him as liable to deportation was maintained.
His appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge ("the FtJ") on the 8 th February 2019. He dismissed the appeal in terms of the respondent's decision to cease refugee status and consequently concluded that the appellant was not entitled to protection under the Refugee Convention and/or Article 3 of the ECHR and dismissed his appeal on Article 8 grounds.
The Appellant applied for permission to appeal and Immigration Judge Froom granted permission on the 1 st April 2019. It is agreed by the advocates that the decision demonstrates the making of an error on point of law based on the judge's assessment of his sexual orientation and the issues of risk on return to Afghanistan in the light of the decisions of AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 873
Pursuant to rule 40(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (as amended), the Upper Tribunal is not required to provide written reasons for its decision under paragraph 40(2)(a) of the Rules, where the decision is made with the consent of the parties (rule 40(3)(a)), or the parties have consented to the Upper Tribunal not giving written reasons (rule 40(3)(b)).
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.