MFH v.SSHD [2016] UKAITUR AA/01875/2015 (23rd September 2016)

 

In allowing the appeal by the appellant the Upper Tribunal found that return of any woman to Somalia, without the abilty to call on a majority clan male network would be at real risk of persecution contrary to the Refugee Convention due to the risk of sexual violence to women in Somalia, including Mogadishu, both inside and outside IDP camps. Minority clan women were at heightened risk throughout Somalia. 

 

KB v. SSHD [2017] UKUT unrep. AA/0650/2015

The Upper Tribunal allowed the asylum appeal of a women at risk of domestic violence in Pakistan by overturning the First Tier Tribunal decision that she could safely relocate to her home village only 30 miles away.

​

Court of Appeal 

​

NA (Pakistan) and SSHD and KJ (Angola), WM (Afhanistan), MY (Kenya) [2016] EWCA Civ 662

 

I acted for KJ (Angola) defending both the First and Upper Tier Tribunals' decisions allowing KJ's appeal against a refusal to revoke his deportation order. The Court of Appeal rejected the Secretary of State's principal ground of appeal that a foreign national criminal was not allowed to rely on circumstances which fell within  Exceptions 1 and 2 of Section 117C(4) and (5) when deciding whether there were 'very compelling circumstanes over and above those described in exceptions 1 and 2'.

​

Luciara Machado Rosa v. SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ; [2016] The Times Law Reports,  24th February 2016

 

In this case, the Court of Appeal accepted the appellant's argument that once a spouse of a European Economic Area (EEA) national established a prima facie case of being a family member of the EEA national by producing a marriage certificate, in those circumstances, the legal burden of proof rests on the Home Office "throughout" to prove that the marriage was one of "convenience" - albeit that the evidential burden might shift. The Home Office argument that the legal burden of proof was a matter for domestic law alone was rejected. 

 

Arturus Dumliauskas and ME (Netherlands) [2015] EWCA Civ 145; [2015] All ER (D) 307 (Feb)

 

On an appeal by the Home Office after both AD and ME had won their deportation appeals in the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal rejected the Secterary of State's principal argument that the relative prospects of rehabilitation between host and home state are irrelevant in the case of an EEA national who has no permanent right of residence in this country.

​

Angus v. SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 490

 

Successfully arguing before the Court of Appeal, under the 2nd Appeals' test criteria, that the Upper Tribunal was in error of law  to overturn the First Tier Tribunal's decision, allowing the deportation appeal of a Jamaican national with a criminal record, on human rights' grounds under Article 8 ECHR

 

MO (Iraq) v. SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 554

 

A case concerning the jurisdiction of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to interfere with decisions of Immigration Judges

 

VN (Uganda) v. ECO [2008] EWCA Civ 232

 

A case concerning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider the human rights of 3rd parties

 

JV (Tanzania) v. SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1532

 

A case concerning the extent to which a refusal of citizenship can amount to persecution for a convention reason.

 

Egilmez v. SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 82

 

A case which concerned the jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal - successfully arguing that the Tribunal had erred in law in interfering with a lower Tribunal's decision in his Turkish client's favour

 

Dogan (Nuri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1697 

 

A case concerning the rationality of a credibility finding, during which Lord Justice Maurice Kay observed: "11. Mr Hodgetts persuasively submits that the immigration judge's approach to this aspect of the case misunderstood the case for the applicant."

 

Ahmed Djebari v. SSHD [2002] EWCA Civ 813 

 

A case involving consideration of Article 3 in the context of return of Algerian nationals; successfully arguing that the Tribunal had failed to give appropriate consideration to the issue

 

Dusan Sugar v. SSHD [2002] EWCA Civ 118 

 

Considering the discriminatory treatment of Roma in the Czech Republic

​

Country Guidance and Upper Tribunal cases

 

MFH v.SSHD [2016] UKAITUR AA/01875/2015 (23rd September 2016)

In allowing the appeal by the appellant, a national of Somalia, the Upper Tribunal found that return of any woman without the abilty to call on a majority clan male network would be at real risk of pesecution contrary to the Refugee Convention due to the risk of sexual violence to women  in Somalia, including Mogadishu, both inside and outside IDP camps. 

 

MFFAZ and Others [2014] UKAITUR AA005702014 (10 December 2014) 

Successfully persuading the Upper Tribunal that a Sunni academic who had received death threats whilst working as an academic at a university in Baghdad, Iraq, had a well found fear of persecution if returned and no safe or reasonable internal relocation alternative available. 

 

Kambulu Joao v. SSHD [2014] UKAITUR DA019552013 (31 October 2014)

Successfully persuading the Upper Tribunal to allow the deportation appeal on human rights' grounds under Article 8 ECHR applying the statutory criteria in Section 117C of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended by the Immigration Act 2014. 

N.B. There is currently an appeal pending before the Supreme Court.  

 

TP v. SSHD [2014] UKAITUR AA105912013 (22 October 2014) 

Successfully arguing that a Sri Lankan national had made out his case to refugee status following the guidance in  GJ and Others (Post-Civil War: Returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 319 (IAC)

 

Maha Tahir Saeed Boy v. ECO [2014] UKAITUR OA174482012 (7 July 2014)  - successfully arguing that the First Tier Tribunal [FTT] erred in law in failing to take account of an orginal marriage certificate produced at the hearing because only a photocopy of was produced with the application. The UT, in allowing the appeal, also reversed the FTT's finding on whether the marriage was subsisting and whether the couple intended to live together permanently as man and wife. 

 

ECO v. S.H.H [2014] UKAITUR OA097952013 (1 July 2014) UT unrep - successfully defending the First Tier Tribunal against an ECO appeal when it had allowed an appellant's entry clearance appeal on purely Article 8 ECHR grounds outside of the new immigration rules. 

 

HBS v. ECO [2014] UKAITUR OA236702012 (4 April 2014) unrep - successfully arguing before the President of the Upper Tribunal that the FTT decision was vitiated by irrationality.

 

D.D.M. and E.S v. WCO [2014] UKAITUR OA160232012 (25 March 2014) - successfully arguing that the FTT erred in law by irrationally finding that false documents had been submitted by the appellant; the UT remaking the decision and holding that appellant's appeal be allowed under paragraph 297 (sole responsibility).

 

MA v. SSHD [2014] UKAITUR AA080552013 (20 February 2014) - successful arguing that the FTT, who had allowed the appellant's appeal on human rights' grounds outside of the rules, on the basis that as an unaccompanied minor from Afghanistan it would be disproportionate to remove him due to the private life he had established with his foster family. The UT considers, Gulshan and Nagre, and held that the FTT did not err in law in allowing the appeal. 

 

JEH [2013] IA/20295/2012, 22/05/2013, UT unrep - successfully persuading the Upper Tribunal that the 'Tsakouridis comparative rehabilitation principle' (derived from Land Baden-Württemberg v Tsakouridis (C-145/09) [2011] 2 CMLR 11) applied to all levels in the hierarchy of EU deportation appeals and not merely to those involving the 'imperative grounds' category of protection. N.B. The Home Office have been granted permission to appeal against the UT's decision in this case which is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 20th January 2015.

 

H.E.H. v. SSHD [2014] UKAITUR AA040182013 (17 January 2014) - successfully arguing before the UT that the appellant, a stateless Palestinian refugee with former habitual residence in Egypt, whose residence permit in Egypt had expired whilst overseas, was at risk of persecution for a convention reason if returned to Egypt.

 

Timiro Nour Osman [2013] UKAITUR OA182442012 (15 November 2013)  - so far, the only successful decision of the Upper Tribunal under the new appendix FM rules on adult dependant relatives; successfully arguing that the appellant satisfied EC-DR 2.4 and EC-DR 2.5. The UT giving guidance no the meaning of the new rules. 

 

MA (Somalia) v. SSHD [2013] UKAITUR DA001242013 (4 October 2013) - successfully winning the appeal of a national of Somalia, on article 8 ECHR grounds outside of the immigration, against a decision to deport him directly to Somaliland. N.B. The Home Office have been granted permission to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal and the hearing is listed in January 2015. The case has received coverage in the national newspapers. 

 

ASM v. SSHD [2013] UKAITUR AA011212013 (24 September 2013) - successfully arguing that the appellant, a citizen of Somalia, was a refugee. 

 

SM and others (Entry Clearance – proportionality) Afghanistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00010 -  successfully arguing that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had failed to establish the burden upon him to show that an illegal entrant could reasonably, practically and safely return to Afghanistan to make an entry clearance application to return as a spouse, and that to expect him to do so would violate his right to family life protected by Article 8 ECHR

 

SD (Treatment of post-hearing evidence) [2008] UKAIT 0037 - successfully arguing that the Immigration Judge erred in law in failing to take into account submissions made post hearing which demonstrated that the Tribunal had proceeded on an incontravertible mistake of fact vitiating his assessment of Article 8(2) ECHR and that 10 years' long residence could be built up whilst awaiting a decision or appeal where that leave was extended by automatic operation of statute pursuant to Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971

 

AG (GPTS, "Tab" and other records) [2004] UKAIT - country guidance on Turkey

 

First Tier Tribunal

 

Glen has also successfully won literally hundreds of cases before the First Tier Tribunal over the last 21 years involving many of world's nationalities, including persons from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, DRC, Congo (Brazaville), Angola, Algeria, Morocco, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Thailand, Malaysia, Mayanmar (Bhurma), Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Brazil, Peru, USA, Australia and many others.