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] ( and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified ) 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 ( and/or other person ). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
              The Appellant then made submissions in respect of a fresh claim which was subsequently refused by the Home Office with the right of appeal, which the Appellant exercised. His appeal came before a First-tier Tribunal Judge for hearing on 18 October 2023 in Glasgow when the Appellant gave evidence, which was rejected by the judge in a decision and reasons dated 25 October 2023.
              The Appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that:
                                         (i)          the judge had erred in law in failing to properly consider the evidence before him, in particular, in relation to the Appellant's political activities in the United Kingdom, both in terms of protests and also in terms of his social media activity on facebook; and
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.