Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad; Nare guidance)
[2021] UKUT 00286 (IAC)). 82. The legal burden of proving that the applicant was dishonest lies on the respondent, albeit that there is a three-stage process. The respondent must first adduce sufficient evidence to raise the issue of dishonesty. The applicant has then a burden of raising an innocent explanation which satisfies the minimum level of plausibility. If that burden is discharged the respondent must establish to her satisfaction, on a balance of probabilities, that this innocent explanation can properly be rejected (
- Background
- Balajigari & Others v SSHD
- The applicant’s submissions
- Balajigari
- Shen (Paper appeals; proving dishonesty)
- Begum
- The lawfulness of the respondent’s approach to dishonesty
- AA Nigeria v SSHD
- Ahmed (general grounds of refusal - material non-disclosure) Pakistan
- Omenma (Conditional discharge – not a conviction for an offence)
- Agha, R (on the application of) v SSHD
- The applicant’s understanding of the meaning of ‘family’ in the relevant guidance
- The issue of materiality
- Procedural fairness
- The respondent’s submissions
- Giri
- LE (Jamaica)
- Ahsan
- Relevant legislative framework
- Precedent fact
- Ex p Khawaja
- R (A) v Croydon LBC
- SSHD v Lim & Anor (R, on the application of)
- Khawaja
- Wednesbury
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses LTD v Wednesbury Corporation
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (no 2)
- R (Lord Carlile of Berriew) v SSHD
- Caroopen & Myrie
- Whether the respondent’s assessment of dishonesty was lawful when considered under conventional public law grounds
- Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad; Nare guidance)
- Abbas, R (on the application of) v SSHD
- Family who live in the UK
- Whether the applicant’s sister’s presence in the UK was a material fact in relation to the application
- Whether the decision was procedurally fair
- R (Mushtaq) v ECO (ECO - procedural fairness)
- R (Anjum) v ECO (entrepreneur-fairness generally)
- Conclusion