- Applied — SR (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-06-24
“…edicament would be worse because the TGTE is a proscribed organisation. The principle in HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31; [2011] 1 AC 596 applies just as much to political opinion as it does to homosexuality (see paragraphs 25-26 of RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012…”
- Cited — BF (Albania) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-10-25
“…[2010] UKSC 31; [2011] 1 AC 596 (“HJ (Iran)”) at [43] and [47]-[49] which, he submitted, set out a different test. However, leaving aside the unlikelihood of a combination of Counsel for the …”
- Cited — Secretary of State for the Home Department v JS (Uganda) 2019-10-10
“…rt, various examples of what he referred to as ‘non-literal’ approaches to the Refugee Convention (including in Januzi v SSHD [2006] 2 AC 426; HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2011] 1 AC 596; and R v Asfaw [2008] 1 AC 1061).…”
- Applied — WA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-03-06
“… his appeal is the submission that the F-tT failed to apply the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 AC 596. The Tribunal failed to ask “why” the Appellant would avoid activity giving rise to the risk of persecution (the “why” question), an obligation laid on it in t…”
- Cited — WA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-03-06
“…c importance raised is that the Court of Appeal’s decision has the potential to undermine the principles in [HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31; [2011] 1 AC 596] and [RT (Zimbabwe) and ors [2012] UKSC 38; [2013] 1 AC 152] about the right to live openly. There is a category of single ‘quiet’ Ahmadis who do not face pers…”
- Cited — WA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-03-06
“…The FTT’s decision was inconsistent with HJ (Iran) [2011] 1 AC 596, and RT (Zimbabwe) [2013] 1 AC 152. In particular, the FTT erred in failing to ask: why the Appellant would desist from practicing his faith openly? If the ans…”