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.
In its 'error of law' decision promulgated on 1 March 2018 the Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal materially erred in law. I briefly summarise the errors of law.
On 19 January 2017 the respondent signed a Deportation Order under section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007, having concluded that section 33 of that Act did not apply. On the same date the respondent refused the appellant's protection and human rights claims and issued a certificate under Section 72 of the 2002 Act. The appellant had a right of appeal against the refusal of his protection and human rights claims under s.82 of the 2002 Act and duly lodged a Notice of Appeal.
At the hearing the appellant gave oral evidence, as did NJ and his sisters ATK and EK. The appellant's mother had travelled to America and was unable to attend the hearing. I maintained a record of the examination in chief and cross examination of the appellant and his witnesses and have considered their evidence with care. I will refer to the material elements of the witnesses' written and oral evidence, and the material elements of the documentary evidence in my assessment below.
Section 72 of the 2002 Act is headed 'Serious criminal'. It reads, in material part,
(1) This section applies for the purpose of the construction and application of Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention (exclusion from protection).
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.