Vylegzhanin v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Vylegzhanin v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law by reading the Russian Criminal Code to assess the accuracy of the expert's assertions; this did not amount to improper research or procedural unfairness. The tribunal's overall decision was based on the applicant's lack of credibility and the sufficiency of protection for gay men in Russia.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Alexey Vylegzhanin; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Deportation of Foreign Criminals, Asylum Claims Based on Sexual Orientation, Procedural Fairness in Tribunal Hearings, Assessment of Foreign Law in UK Tribunals
Immigration Law Asylum Law Deportation of Foreign Criminals Asylum Claims Based on Sexual Orientation Procedural Fairness in Tribunal Hearings Assessment of Foreign Law in UK Tribunals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexey Vylegzhanin

Applicant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by the legal member reading the Russian Criminal Code independently and relying on it in the decision
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural impropriety affecting the fairness of the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of persecution as a gay man if returned to Russia

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law by reading the Russian Criminal Code to assess the accuracy of the expert's assertions; this did not amount to improper research or procedural unfairness. The tribunal's overall decision was based on the applicant's lack of credibility and the sufficiency of protection for gay men in Russia.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused