Sterling & Law Associates LLP were successful in the appeal case at the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) challenging the Home Office’s refusal of a client’s asylum claim.
The Appellant has appealed under Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the Respondents decision dated in 2017 to refuse the grant asylum under paragraph 336 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, the decision contained proposals for the Appellant removal to Ukraine.
The appellant is a citizen of Ukraine. He left his home country in 2002 and entered the UK in 2002/03. The Appellant claimed that he is a refugee whose removal would breach obligations under the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006. Alternatively, he claimed that he is entitled to be granted humanitarian protection in accordance with paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules.The Appellant also claimed that removal from the United Kingdom would breach obligations under Articles 2,3 and 8 of the ECHR.
The Appellant also claimed that his need for an asylum was urgent because since being in the UK he had received several military call-up notices dated between June 2015 and 2016.The notices were sent to the address of his relatives and were forwarded to him in the UK.The Notices state that he must report to the Military Regional Commissariat in his local area.The Appellant stated that if he returns to Ukraine, he would be called up for military service for the second time and he would be persecuted due to his previous absence.
The Appellant’s representative has submitted that the Appellant’s rights under Articles 2 and 3 of 1950 Convention are engaged. It has been agreed that Article 2 and 3 stand or fall with an asylum claim. Given findings in relation to the Asylum appeal it has been stated that Articles 2 and 3 are engaged in this Appeal.
Upon consideration of the appeal lodged by Sterling & Law Associates LLP on behalf of the client, the Judge held that the appellant was sincere in his objections to having to perform military service in Ukraine and the evidence provided was credible.
The appeal was allowed on asylum and human rights grounds.