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.
An anonymity order was not made by the First-tier Tribunal. However, as this appeal raises protection issues, it is appropriate to make an anonymity order. Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies, amongst others, to both parties. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
The Appellant appealed the Respondent's decision on protection and human rights grounds (Article 3 and 8 ECHR) and also challenged the decision to revoke as well as the application of Section 72. The Judge dismissed the appeal on all grounds.
(1) The Judge failed properly to assess the evidence in relation to the danger which the Appellant poses to the community when considering Section 72 (Ground One);
(2) The Judge erred in his consideration of the cessation decision in the following ways:
(a) Failed to consider whether there was a durable and fundamental change in the circumstances which led to the grant of refugee status and failed to take into account the UNHCR's views in that regard (Ground Two)
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.