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 .  
              This is an appeal by the appellant against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Khawar (the "Judge"), dated 15 March 2024, in which he dismissed the appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim. The appellant is a national of Bangladesh who made fresh submissions claiming asylum on grounds of his political opinion.
              Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dainty in a decision dated 9 April 2024 as follows:
" The grounds aver that the judge relies disproportionately on the previous determination. It is said that the passage of time (6 years) and the amount of time having resided in the UK (nearly 20 years) justified a departure from the first determination. Secondly it is said that the judge erred at [53] in finding that the family and private life claims (art 8/276ADE) were not pursued in this appeal. They were and this was set out in the ASA. As such the judge has not made any findings under 276ADE or art 8 outside the rules (which the grounds say are meritorious).
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.