Before people get annoyed, this was quashed because IPAT didn’t follow proper procedure. The Court as much as said that if IPAT had, it would have been fine to refuse refugee status.
IPAT can be quite like ABP in that they lose many of the cases appealed to the courts because they didn’t follow basic procedural rules.
>Ms Justice Bolger said that, had Ipat properly assessed the man’s claim in accordance with section 28, it would have been open to it to have determined what weight it would attach to his evidence about his claimed political activity and his concern about being targeted by people he owed money to.
>This could have included taking account of his general credibility in light of him having made an initial false claim, she added.
>The difficulty with Ipat’s approach was the absence of any adequate assessment of the new claim in favour of an “almost exclusive focus” on his decision to make an initial false claim and the absence of a reasonable explanation from him for having done so.
The decision is being sent back to IPAT to consider a fresh, where it will have the opportunity to follow the proper procedure and refuse refugee status again.
How would someone prove they are gay?
>Ms Justice Bolger said that, had Ipat properly assessed the man’s claim in accordance with section 28, it would have been open to it to have determined what weight it would attach to his evidence about his claimed political activity and his concern about being targeted by people he owed money to.
>This could have included taking account of his general credibility in light of him having made an initial false claim, she added.
>The difficulty with Ipat’s approach was the absence of any adequate assessment of the new claim in favour of an “almost exclusive focus” on his decision to make an initial false claim and the absence of a reasonable explanation from him for having done so.
>She remitted the matter back to Ipat for fresh consideration.
Basically an administrative issue, IPAT hear it again and will probably come to the same decision.
This does show the problem with how long everything takes. If we had the excess capacity in the system to allow initial decision, IPAT appeal, and any judicial review to happen in a matter of weeks then there’d be little point in chancers like this coming over.
3 comments
Before people get annoyed, this was quashed because IPAT didn’t follow proper procedure. The Court as much as said that if IPAT had, it would have been fine to refuse refugee status.
IPAT can be quite like ABP in that they lose many of the cases appealed to the courts because they didn’t follow basic procedural rules.
>Ms Justice Bolger said that, had Ipat properly assessed the man’s claim in accordance with section 28, it would have been open to it to have determined what weight it would attach to his evidence about his claimed political activity and his concern about being targeted by people he owed money to.
>This could have included taking account of his general credibility in light of him having made an initial false claim, she added.
>The difficulty with Ipat’s approach was the absence of any adequate assessment of the new claim in favour of an “almost exclusive focus” on his decision to make an initial false claim and the absence of a reasonable explanation from him for having done so.
The decision is being sent back to IPAT to consider a fresh, where it will have the opportunity to follow the proper procedure and refuse refugee status again.
How would someone prove they are gay?
>Ms Justice Bolger said that, had Ipat properly assessed the man’s claim in accordance with section 28, it would have been open to it to have determined what weight it would attach to his evidence about his claimed political activity and his concern about being targeted by people he owed money to.
>This could have included taking account of his general credibility in light of him having made an initial false claim, she added.
>The difficulty with Ipat’s approach was the absence of any adequate assessment of the new claim in favour of an “almost exclusive focus” on his decision to make an initial false claim and the absence of a reasonable explanation from him for having done so.
>She remitted the matter back to Ipat for fresh consideration.
Basically an administrative issue, IPAT hear it again and will probably come to the same decision.
This does show the problem with how long everything takes. If we had the excess capacity in the system to allow initial decision, IPAT appeal, and any judicial review to happen in a matter of weeks then there’d be little point in chancers like this coming over.