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 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. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
             The appellant appeals with permission against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") promulgated on 6 December 2023, dismissing her appeal against the decision by the Secretary of State to refuse her application for asylum and her human rights claim.
             The Secretary of State, relying in part on a previous decision by the FtT ("the first decision"), concluded that the appellant would not be at risk on return to Zimbabwe and does not qualify for refugee status. The Secretary of State considered the Article 3 claim made by the appellant and concluded, having had the regard to the expert report from Dr Hazel Cameron, and the test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 17 , that the appellant's removal to Zimbabwe would be in breach of Article 3.
             That test, as summarised in AM (Art 3; health cases) Zimbabwe [2022] UKUT 131 is:
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.