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.
For the Appellant:��������� Mr P Jorro (Counsel instructed by Wilson Solicitors LLP)
The interpretation of paragraph 334 of the Immigration Rules is subject to the Qualification Directive and the Procedures Directive.
The appellant, whose date of birth is [date], is an ethnic Tibetan from the People�s Republic of China.� He has appealed against a decision dated 30 September 2014 to remove him to India consequent to the refusal of his protection claim (for asylum made on 25 January 2013).�� The appellant appeals on the basis that he is a refugee whose removal from the UK would breach the UK�s obligations under the Refugee Convention and/or that such removal would be unlawful as incompatible with his human rights.
The appellant claims that as an ethnic Tibetan from China he faces a real risk of persecution on return ( SP & others (Tibetan- Nepalese departure � illegal- risk) Peoples Republic of China CG [2007] UKUT 21). � He argues that the exclusionary provisions in Article 1E (Refugee convention) and the Qualification Directive (339C) do not apply as he is unable to return to India and would not be recognised as having the same or equivalent rights to an Indian National.� The burden is on the respondent to show that he could be readmitted to India where there would be sufficient protection available.
The respondent did not accept the appellant�s claim to have protested outside the Chinese embassy in Delhi, when considered against the background material.
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.