R (Balamurali) v SSHD [2004] INLR 426, CA. Correct approach to certification of human rights claims under Immigration & Asylum Act 1999.

M v SSHD [1996] 1 WLR 507, CA. A person is a Geneva Convention refugee even if the feared persecution arises from actions undertaken to enhance a claim to refugee status.

Rule 353

Pardeepan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] I.N.L.R. 447

Reports and

Scotish Refugee Council

Case law

Documentary evidenace - BN( Zimbabwe) V Secretary of State of Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1830 -20/12/2005

Mohammed V SSHD- Judicial process- fresh claim-

WR (DRC) and AR (Afghanistan) [2006] EWCA Civ 1495 which sets out when fresh representations must be “recorded as a fresh claim” which will attract a rt of appeal.

Court of Appeal case on the scrutiny of fresh asylum claims (WM (DRC) v SSHD) [November 2006]

This briefing looks at the Court of Appeal judgement that found that the Secretary of State had given insufficient consideration to fresh evidence provided as new claims by previously rejected asylum applicants and ordered that the cases be reconsidered. (Note: Court of Appeal case: WM (DRC) v SSHD 9th November 2006)

AIT judgment in AA (Zimbabwe) case - previous decision overturned

WM (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department AR (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] All ER (D) 109 (Nov); [2006] EWCA Civ 1495
Immigration – Asylum seeker – Fresh claim – New evidence to support claim – Proper test – Whether new evidence amounting to fresh claim – Immigration Rules 1999, r 353.