header-logo header-logo

24 February 2011
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Asylum

BA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC), [2011] All ER (D) 193 (Feb)

The factors bearing on the risk on return of dissidents who had engaged in sur place activities fell under four heads. For each factor there was a spectrum of risk. Further, the factors were not exhaustive and might overlap. The first head was the type of sur place activity involved.

The factors to be considered under that head were: (i) what the demonstrators wanted and how they would be characterised by the regime in question; (ii) the role played by the individual and his political profile; (iii) the extent of his participation; and (iv) the extent and nature of the publicity which the demonstration attracted.

The second head was the risk that the person would be identified as engaging in the sur place activity. The factors to be considered under that head were how the regime identified dissidents and what capacity it had to identify individuals.

The third head was the factors that would trigger inquiry/action upon return. Specifically:

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll