FUNDAMENTALS OF IMMIGRATION LAW (PDF)
Added on 2021-05-31
22 Pages5757 Words60 Views
Immigration Laws 1IMMIGRATION LAWSBy (Student’s Name)Professor’s Name College Course Date
Immigration Laws 2IN THE TRIBUNAL COURTADMINISTRATIVE COURT BETWEENIN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Immigration laws.MR. ABDI ABDULLAHIAppellant vTHE BRITISH HOME OFFICE OF UK (IMMIGRATION AND VISA) RespondentIMMIGRATION LAWSSKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF MR JAMALI ABDULLAH. Date 12:12:18Name: Alia Hassan
Immigration Laws 31.0 IntroductionAn appeal by Mr. Jamali Abdullahi against the decision made by the Home Office UKVisas and Immigration. This is an appeal by Mr. Jamali Abdullahi who is seeking asylum in theUK state. The appellant is an Iran national who is threatened by his stay in Iran and, therefore,seeking to continue his stay in the UK. He has requested to be recognized as a refugee. He hasalso requested for a grant of humanitarian protection. He has cited several reasons for his actionswhich haven’t convinced the UK state home office. The state home office of UK has declinedthe request citing various reasons. The counter reason given by the home office does notconvince the appellant. This has led to the appeal application seeking to make the courtreconsider the decision made by the home office of UK.2.0 The IssueMr. Jamali raised different issues in his claims to request asylum, each issue wasresponded to by the UK home state office in an unexpected casual manner. The issues raisedinclude; Issue 2.1 The appellant was seeking asylum and in the UK and asked to be recognized as arefuge1. The basis of the request is the well-founded fear of persecution 2 in Iran due to religiousdisagreements. The home office replied not to have found a convincing reason, through thesecretary of state. Quoted directly from the refusal order statement he argues. “I have decided1Battjes, H., Brouwer, E., Slingenberg, L. and Spijkerboer, T., 2016. The Crisis of European Refugee Law: Lessons from Lake Success2Bauder, H., 2014. Why we should use the term ‘illegalized’refugee or immigrant: A commentary. International Journal of Refugee Law, 26(3), pp.327-332.
Immigration Laws 4that you have not established a well-founded fear of persecution so you do not qualify forasylum”. It goes further to say the asylum claim has therefore been refused under the paragraph336 and 339M of HC395 of the (exhibit JA1).Issue 2.2Secondly, the appellant’s request for humanitarian protection3.The office throughthe secretary has also awarded a refusal statement on the same. Quoted directly he states. “I havealso decided that you do not show substantial grounds for believing that you face a real risk ofsuffering serious harm on return from the UK, so you do not qualify for humanitarianprotection.” These claim has also been refuted under the paragraph 339F of the immigration rule.Issue 2.3 The house also established that they carefully considered the circumstances of thecase. They hold that none of their decisions has in any way breached his individual rights(exhibit JA1 339F)4.The individual right being talked about is; right to respect for family andprivate life under (article 8) of the ECHR. This decision was based on considerations of theappendix FM and the immigration rules.Issue 2.4 The house also decided that the appellant does not qualify for leave. The decisionis made considering the argument of the appellant’s family and private life in the UK. Therefusal order is under section 276CEIssue 2.5 The house has also ruled that the appellant is not eligible for grant of limitedleave5. The leave granted to remain the UK in accordance with the published Home AffairsAsylum policy instructions. Lastly, the house decided that the appellant does not qualify for3Behrman, S., 2018. Refugee Law as a Means of Control. Journal of Refugee Studies.4Berna, M.B., 2015. Equality and Non-Discrimination within the Legal System of the European
Immigration Laws 5discretionary leave. They, therefore, acknowledge considering all the humanitarian laws of theECHR, under article 2 and 3. Issue 2.6 Section 55 of the borders ACT takes into account considerations of safeguardingand promoting the welfare of children in the UK. The house has only mentioned of taking thissection into consideration while making their decision but not on any specific decision.3.0 Facts of the Case Fact 3.1 Mr. Jamal Abdullah is an Iran national. Fact 3.2 He is threatened by his return to their original country. Adhan Abdullah brotherto the appellant has been arrested and detained following his flight from Iran. This shows therehave been attempts to find the appellant6. The parents to the appellant are not practicingMuslims. Fact 3.3 He has been involved in the atheist society at the University. He has shared hisbeliefs of atheism with other like-minded people. He has written articles of atheism before anddistributed them to the school. The appellant is a victim of a raid that took place in the buildingthat they had organized an atheist meeting. Fact 3.4 Security officers raided the building on account of searching for the appellant.The appellant has never had problems with the nation except on accounts of being an atheist.5Brennan, R., 2017. Review of the 1st Annual Conference of the Refugee Law Initiative and the Refugee Family Reunion Project.6Lambert, H., 2017. An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals: A Judicial Analysis.
Immigration Laws 6Security agents in Iran have been in pursuit of the appellant since learning that he is an atheist7.They have raided severally the home of his parents in Iran searching for him. He confirms beingan atheist. Fact 3.5 He is risking going back to Iran since an open declaration in Iran would lead tohis death8. Iran’s punishment for the atheist is a death sentence9. The appellant cannot stay inanother part of the home country since the regime is well connected and can find him and stillpunish him. Fact 3.6 The appellant has never attended military services.4.0 The Law 4.1 The following law will apply to this case.4.2 The International Human Rights Regulatory law.4.3 The European Convention on Human Rights law7Cheneval, F., Lavenex, S. and Schimmelfennig, F., 2015. Demoi-cracy in the European Union: principles, institutions, policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(1), pp.1-18.8Clayton, G., 2016. Textbook on immigration and asylum law. Oxford University Press9Contreras, J.L. and Layne-Farrar, A., 2017. Non-Discrimination and FRAND Commitments.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
The Secretary of State for the Homelg...
|5
|885
|16
Legal Basis of Asylum: Proof and Recognitionlg...
|12
|5449
|84