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 by the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 19 April 2011
Introduction [1] The petitioner is a citizen of Zimbabwe . In this application she seeks review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 19 April 2011 not to treat certain representations made by her as a fresh claim for asylum. The procedural history of the petitioner's claim for asylum is set out in the petition as follows.
[3] On 4 April 2011 , the petitioner lodged a further submission which she sought to have treated as a fresh claim. The Secretary of State's refusal to treat this submission as a fresh claim is the subject of the present application. The submission was based largely upon changes in country guidance applicable to Zimbabwe during the period since the petitioner's arrival in the UK . It is therefore necessary for me to set out the evolution of that guidance in some detail.
Country guidance: Zimbabwe [4] From time to time the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) issues decisions which are designated by the Tribunal as "country guidance" (CG) decisions. As the Court of Appeal noted in R (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] Imm AR 535 (paragraph 21), the usefulness of country guidance decisions is such that the practice is embedded in what are now Directions 12.2 - 12.4 of the Practice Directions for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal:
"12.2 A reported determination of the Tribunal, the AIT or the IAT bearing the letters CG shall be treated as authoritative finding on the country guidance issue identified in the determination, based on the evidence before the members of Tribunal...that determine the appeal. As a result, unless it has been expressly superseded or replaced by any later CG determination, or is inconsistent with other authority that is binding on the Tribunal, such a country guidance case is authoritative in any subsequent appeal, so far as that appeal:-
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.