Hareef, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hareef, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The refusal to grant permission to appeal on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds was lawful as the FTT's findings were rational and supported by evidence; the Article 3 claim did not meet the high threshold for medical cases; the Article 8 claim was not fully addressed but would have failed on the evidence, so no relief was granted.

Parties
Claimant: Ahmad Rashied Hareef; Defendant: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber); Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Claim After Permission Granted
Outcome
Judicial review allowed in part (Article 8 ground only), but no relief granted; refused on all other grounds.
Legal Topics
Asylum, Humanitarian Protection, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Medical Grounds for Leave to Remain, Judicial Review Procedure
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Asylum Humanitarian Protection Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Medical Grounds for Leave to Remain +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Rashied Hareef

Claimant

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Claim After Permission Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant asylum/humanitarian protection was lawful
  2. 2 Whether removal to Afghanistan would breach Article 3 ECHR due to lack of medical treatment
  3. 3 Whether removal would breach Article 8 ECHR (private life)

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to grant permission to appeal on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds was lawful as the FTT's findings were rational and supported by evidence; the Article 3 claim did not meet the high threshold for medical cases; the Article 8 claim was not fully addressed but would have failed on the evidence, so no relief was granted.

Court Disposition

Judicial review allowed in part (Article 8 ground only), but no relief granted; refused on all other grounds.

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review allowed in respect of Article 8 ECHR ground (failure to fully address private life), but no relief granted.
  • Claim for judicial review refused on all other grounds.