Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal dismissed JL’s challenge to revocation of refugee status, holding that where a new protection ground is relied on after the original reason falls away, the burden lies on the claimant.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an asylum appeal from the Upper Tribunal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal gave adequate reasons and correctly applied the persecution threshold.
The High Court held that pending asylum claims did not prevent the mother from returning two children to Brazil under an existing Hague Convention return order.
TN is settled in England and Wales for purposes of Article 12, and grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) is established due to domestic abuse allegations and lack of enforceable protective measures in Albania; discretion not exercised to order return.
Source excerpt
M v F (No2)(Implementation of Return Order) [2026] EWHC 324 (Fam) (19 January 2026)
The High Court held that pending asylum claims did not bar the mother from removing the children to Brazil under an existing Hague Convention return order.
Article 13(b) grave risk exception is not satisfied; the court confidently discounts risk of intolerable situation for C upon return, especially given Ohio Family Court's welfare determination and proposed protective measures. C's objections are noted but carry limited weight due to age, maturity, and influence by mother. Discretion exercised in favour of return, subject to undertakings ensuring 'soft landing' and minimising risk of maternal incarceration or immediate separation.
Source excerpt
C (A Child), Re (Abduction: Grave Risk: Asylum Claim: Child's Objections) [2025] EWHC 3461 (Fam) (17 December 2025)
The High Court ordered C’s return to Ohio under the Hague Convention, rejecting grave risk and child objections arguments, with return protected by undertakings.
The appeal was dismissed because the findings of fact established that the appellant was not genuinely politically motivated, his sur place activities were contrived to bolster his asylum claim, and there was no evidence that his activities had come to the attention of the Iranian authorities. The country guidance was properly applied, and the absence of explicit reference to the 'hair-trigger' approach did not constitute a material error of law. The appellant would not be expected to volunteer information about his contrived activities on return, and thus faced no real risk of persecution or…
Source excerpt
The High Court held that post-Brexit immigration law no longer bars implementing a child return order before asylum claims are decided, if non-refoulement is respected.
K (Children) (Application for return orders: Concurrent asylum claims) [2025] EWHC 450 (Fam) (28 February 2025)
The High Court held that, under the current domestic framework, it may implement a child return order before asylum claims are determined, if non-refoulement is respected.
Explore more
