Trafficking Issues in the IAC Tribunals
(34)
At the outset, we recall that the decisions of the Secretary of State which were challenged by appeal to the FtT were the refusal of his asylum claim and the corresponding decision to remove him from the United Kingdom . Given the date of these decisions, 01 August 2013, the statutory appeal provisions governing the two appeals which have followed and the remaking decision in which this complete Tribunal is now engaged, the relevant statutory provisions are the following:
- ntroduction
- Error of Law
- Trafficking Decision
- The Asylum Refusal Decision
- documentary
- Decision of the FtT
- if he was a victim of trafficking this was very much at the lower end of the spectrum.
- I find as a fact that he ceased to be in a situation which might have amounted to being a victim of trafficking following his arrest in September 2012.
- Framework of this appeal
- Factual Matrix
- The Appellant’s family
- Preserved Findings
- oubt
- “ Assessment of facts and circumstances
- Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Russia
- United Kingdom
- R v SK
- Attorney General’s Reference Nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010
- Connors and Others
- France
- ewan) v
- R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
- Trafficking Issues in the IAC Tribunals
- Section 82, 2002 Act
- Section 84, 2002 Act
- Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith
- Afghanistan
- Secretary of
- Abdi
- Rantsev
- consider
- Ullah
- Amatewan
- Atamewan
- to Mogadishu) Somalia
- DECISION
- Bernard McCloskey
- Date:
- CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC), [23] – [27]
- National Justice CIA Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Company Limited
- Vernon v Bosley (No 2)
- Stevens v Gullis
- Lucas v Barking Hospitals NHS Trust
- Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department