Legal Report: Yu Yang v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This report analyzes the case of Yu Yang v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, focusing on the grounds of appeal against the decision to refuse asylum and humanitarian protection. The appellant, a citizen of Hong Kong and China, contested the decision based on various factors, including the credibility of her testimony, the evaluation of evidence, and the application of legal standards. The report highlights key arguments, such as the judge's assessment of the appellant's behavior during interviews and cross-examination, the implausibility of her story, and the consideration of psychological reports. The analysis includes references to relevant legal precedents and acts, such as the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 and the case of IY (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1560, to support the grounds of appeal. The report emphasizes the importance of considering all evidence and the behavior of the appellant. The document also includes the details of the First Screening Interview, Second Interview, Home Office Letter of Refusal, Appellant’s Statement and Dr. Xpert’s Report.

Running head: LAW
LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW
Yu Yang
v
The Secretary of State for the Home Department1
Grounds of Appeal
1. A. The appellant was considered to be born on 1st of January in the year 1992 and was a
citizen of Hong Kong and China. She had appealed that the respondent decision in order
to give directions for removal from the United Kingdom was considered to be done in
order to refuse to grant any asylum or any other humanitarian protection.
B.As per the hearing of the case the appellant had given or submitted evidence in the court and
had adopted the interviews for her statement of evidence. In addition to such, in the statement
much more details had been added to the interviews.
C.It has been submitted that the appellant had provided and submitted her psychological report
from the Dr Xpert but he did not offer himself to be cross-examined at the hearing. Therefore,
such might lead to undermining or destabilization of the case relating to the appellant. As for the
psychological report it can be understood that the renowned doctor with the greatest respect had
a report and the judges were not considered to be bound by those reports. It has been found that
the report by Dr Xpert had been hoodwinked as such had been in the case of IY (Turkey) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 15602.
1 Yu Yang v The Secretary of State for the Home Department HX [1219]
2 IY (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1560.

2LAW
2. A. There had been submissions from both the parties and such had been recorded fully. In
order to determine the matter and give the judgment regarding it all the evidences were
considered to be evaluated and assessed after the submissions of the parties. It was
understood that the judgment had been bound by the S.8 of the Asylum and Immigration
(Treatment of claimant’s Act 2004)3 which also takes into consideration of the behaviour.
It had been submitted that the plaintiff or the complainant’s subsequent behaviour had not
been considered to be claiming asylum when she had arrived the country and therefore,
her failure to give any kind of adequate information to that of the Immigration Officer
during the first interview was considered to be her refusal to answer any of the questions
at her second interview. Therefore, such can also be the reason or a ground for an appeal.
B.It had been also submitted that at the hearing it had been understood that she was insolent as
well as defiant during the time of cross-examination. Thus, such a behaviour could also depict
and along with such undermine her credibility. In addition to such, she had not carried any kind
of documentation which would help her prove the case. For instance, it could be a letter from the
police which would ask her to report to them. Therefore, based on such finding it can be
understood that her escape from Hong Kong was considered to be well-planned as she had been
a daughter of wealthy businessman and there was no doubt on the fact that she had a mobile
phone and thus, she would receive texts from the agent and as well as her father which would
help in providing additional documentary evidence to the court.
3. A. The story can also be considered to be totally implausible and therefore, the matter
should be handled independently as there had been an agreement with the Secretary of
State that the story of the appellant or the plaintiff would be considered to be highly
3 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of claimant’s Act 2004)

3LAW
improbable. Therefore, based on such improbability it can be considered to be a ground
for appeal.
B.In addition to such, the appellant or the plaintiff had claimed for her life and nevertheless, the
authorities were not considered to torture her. Therefore, apart from the trauma it can be
understood that she had claimed to have experience and said that nothing had happened to her. It
had also been stated that the finding to the story was considered to be too strange and along with
such unusual which would be highly improbable and therefore, if the Hong Kong Authorities
wished they could have punished the appellant and thus, it would not be considered to be at all
credible as they would have let her go twice. It has been submitted that throughout the process of
asylum the plaintiff or the appellant had been incoherent and along with such inconsistent and
had delayed providing any kind of details of the facts that were considered to be crucial for the
case Therefore, such led to adverse conclusions on the subject of credibility. Therefore, such can
also be considered to be a ground for appeal.

4LAW
Bibliography
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of claimant’s Act 2004).
IY (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1560.
Yu Yang v The Secretary of State for the Home Department HX [1219].