ZN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

ZN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Tribunal did not err in law in its consideration of Article 8 or in its assessment of the appellant's credibility. The Tribunal properly directed itself on the relevant legal principles, considered the evidence, and gave adequate reasons. The grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success and did not meet the second appeals test.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: ZN (Afghanistan); Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
renewed application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Asylum, Humanitarian Protection, Article 8 ECHR, Credibility Assessment, Family Life, Private Life
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Humanitarian Protection Article 8 ECHR Credibility Assessment Family Life Private Life

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZN (Afghanistan)

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in its consideration of Article 8 (family and private life)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the appellant's credibility
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the expert country report

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law in its consideration of Article 8 or in its assessment of the appellant's credibility. The Tribunal properly directed itself on the relevant legal principles, considered the evidence, and gave adequate reasons. The grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success and did not meet the second appeals test.

Court Disposition

renewed application for permission to appeal refused