HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Lord Justice Longmore |
Judgment Date | 14 February 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 311 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Date | 14 February 2011 |
Docket Number | Case No: C5 / 2010 / 2446 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 311
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Before: Lord Justice Longmore
Case No: C5 / 2010 / 2446
[APPEAL No: IA/28468/2009]
The Appellant appeared in person, assisted by an interpreter.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Lord Justice Longmore:
This applicant seeks permission to appeal from the judgment of the Upper Tribunal of 5 August 2010. He was born in April 1974. He came to this country and claimed asylum in March 2001. He claimed that he was persecuted in Iraq and that he feared that he would be persecuted if he returned, but his claim was rejected and he appealed but his appeal was dismissed in January 2003.
He asked for leave to remain in this country and he did remain here for a number of years but eventually his application for leave to remain was refused. He appealed to a First-tier tribunal who dismissed his appeal. He then got permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal but the Upper Tribunal also dismissed his appeal. On both occasions he had solicitors to represent him and they applied for permission to appeal to this court. That application was refused on paper and now he has renewed his application orally today in person but with the assistance of Mr Ninam, the interpreter.
So I now have to consider whether he should be granted permission to appeal. Since it is an application for a second appeal I have to be persuaded that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. That is a difficult test. Mr A has said to me that he cannot find work or accommodation; that his partner lives with her parents for those reasons; that he has been here for 11 years; he has not committed any crime; that he had a bad life in Iraq and hopes to stay here so that he can have a better standard of life in England. I am very sympathetic to the applicant but I fear that there is no point of law let alone any important point of principle or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R Eduard Berky v Newport City Council (1st Respondent) WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc (2nd Respondent/1st Interested Party) Linc-Cymru Housing Association (3rd Respondent/2nd Interested Party)
...the Lysaght Institute was not protected from demolition (contrary to the law as later established in R(SAVE) v Secretary of State [2011] EWCA Civ 311). 10 The judge rejected each of these grounds: i) The Council had been entitled to decide that an environmental statement was not required, ......
-
R Edward Berky, on his own behalf and on behalf of the "Say No to Morrisons" Group v Newport City Council W. M. Morrison Supermarkets Plc (1st Interested Party) Linc-Cymru Housing Association (2nd Interested Party)
...for such demolition. After the decision in R (Save Britain's Heritage) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 311, the law is to the contrary. Thus it could be submitted that the planning committee proceeded upon a false premise — but not in my judgment on......