JR-2025-LON-001670
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case no:
JR-2025-LON-001670
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MRS
JUSTICE DIAS
Amended 28 May 2025 under the slip rule
The KING
On the application of BY
Applicant
-v-
Respondent
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
___________________________________
ORDER
28 May 2025
___________________________________
UPON the Applicant’s Application for urgent interim relief
AND UPON reading the documents lodged in support of the Application
AND UPON hearing counsel for the Applicant
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that:
1. Anonymity is granted.
2. The Respondent is prohibited from taking steps to remove the Applicant until the conclusion of the Judicial Review proceedings issued on 28 May 2025.
3. Costs reserved.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Mrs Justice Dias DBE
Dated this 28th day of May 2025
Reasons:
1. It is accepted that Ground 2 of the Applicant’s judicial review challenge has now fallen away in the light of the further negative reasonable grounds decision received this afternoon from the SSHD.
2. Nonetheless, although that decision rejected the Applicant’s account of torture and modern slavery, the medical report of Dr. Ali confirms there are serious issues to be tried both in this respect and as regards his fitness to fly.
3. Moreover, the Applicant made further submissions on 27 May 2025 in relation to his asylum claim which have not so far been considered by SSHD. This is not a case where it can be said that the submissions were lodged so late that SSHD was given no reasonable time for consideration. Accordingly, para. 353A requires the Applicant not to be removed until those submissions have been considered.
4. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party in this case and, given the nature of the risks facing the Applicant if his version of events is ultimately upheld, the balance of convenience is clearly in favour of granting an injunction preventing his removal pending determination of the judicial review proceedings.
5. Given the politically sensitive nature of the evidence in this case, relating to both the allegations made and the Applicant’s physical and mental condition, it is appropriate for anonymity to be granted. There is no compelling general public interest in knowing the identity of the Applicant.
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case no:
JR-2025-LON-001670
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MRS
JUSTICE DIAS
Amended 28 May 2025 under the slip rule
The KING
On the application of BY
Applicant
-v-
Respondent
SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
___________________________________
ORDER
28 May 2025
___________________________________
UPON the Applicant’s Application for urgent interim relief
AND UPON reading the documents lodged in support of the Application
AND UPON hearing counsel for the Applicant
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that:
1. Anonymity is granted.
2. The Respondent is prohibited from taking steps to remove the Applicant until the conclusion of the Judicial Review proceedings issued on 28 May 2025.
3. Costs reserved.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Mrs Justice Dias DBE
Dated this 28th day of May 2025
Reasons:
1. It is accepted that Ground 2 of the Applicant’s judicial review challenge has now fallen away in the light of the further negative reasonable grounds decision received this afternoon from the SSHD.
2. Nonetheless, although that decision rejected the Applicant’s account of torture and modern slavery, the medical report of Dr. Ali confirms there are serious issues to be tried both in this respect and as regards his fitness to fly.
3. Moreover, the Applicant made further submissions on 27 May 2025 in relation to his asylum claim which have not so far been considered by SSHD. This is not a case where it can be said that the submissions were lodged so late that SSHD was given no reasonable time for consideration. Accordingly, para. 353A requires the Applicant not to be removed until those submissions have been considered.
4. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party in this case and, given the nature of the risks facing the Applicant if his version of events is ultimately upheld, the balance of convenience is clearly in favour of granting an injunction preventing his removal pending determination of the judicial review proceedings.
5. Given the politically sensitive nature of the evidence in this case, relating to both the allegations made and the Applicant’s physical and mental condition, it is appropriate for anonymity to be granted. There is no compelling general public interest in knowing the identity of the Applicant.