Immigration

IA006672014

[2014] UKAITUR IA006672014United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments2014

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

For the reasons given the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to Hatton Cross Hearing Centre where it will be heard de novo by any judge other than Judge Prior or myself.

[2] Indeed, at the hearing before me, Mr Emezie only mentioned the matter, in passing after the merits had been fully argued.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Immigration cases

UI2025005115

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025005115

UI2025003620

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025003620

UI2025003580

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025003580

UI2025003351

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025003351

UI2024005568

[2026] UKAITUR UI2024005568

UI2025005222

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025005222

Common Room

Discussion

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.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.