Unprecedented generic injunction from the Court of Appeal secured ahead of removal flight to Afghanistan

Tuesday 25 August 2015

On 19 August 2015, Lord Justice Clarke granted permission to appeal in the case of Naziri & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (judicial review – scope - evidence (IJR) [2015] UKUT 437 (IAC) (27 July 2015).

Share This Page

Email This Page

Permission to appeal has been granted on six separate grounds including whether the Tribunal properly dealt with the Appellants’ fresh claims, whether the Tribunal misconstrued the test applicable under Article 15c of the Qualification Directive and whether it failed to consider whether any of the Appellants were properly categorised as vulnerable within the meaning of the Memorandum of Understanding.

Lord Justice Christopher Clarke also granted interim relief staying the removal of all 30 Appellants involved in the case, pending the outcome of the appeal.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, then applied to lift the stay on removals of the Appellants.  By way of response, the Appellants applied for further interim relief for all other persons facing forced removal on the charter flight PVT081 to Kabul on Wednesday 26 August 2015 at 00.30 who were not habitually resident in the provinces of Banyam, Panjshir and Kabul.

Following a hearing on Friday 21 August 2015, in which Sonali Naik represented the Appellants, Lord Justice Clarke refused the Home Secretary’s application to lift the stay and granted injunctive relief in the terms sought. The substantive appeal will be expedited.

The Home Secretary has issued new country information based on her interpretation of the decision of the Upper Tribunal in this case and is relying on the decision when refusing Afghan asylum claims, representing before the First Tier and Upper Tier Tribunals and/or seeking to remove people.

Afghan nationals, including those from Bayam, Panjshir and Kabul, whose claims are refused in reliance on Naziri & Ors should seek further advice. In particular, where submissions have been made pursuant to Article 15c of the Qualification Directive on the basis that, hailing from a ‘dangerous province’, they would face a serious and individual threat of indiscriminate violence if returned there and that relocation to Kabul would be unreasonable, or if they are potentially 'vulnerable' or otherwise fall within the meaning of the Memorandum of Understanding.

More information can be found in the press release on the Duncan Lewis website.

This case has been reported in the Guardian.

The Appellants were represented by Sonali Naik, Louise Hooper, Ali Bandegani and Bryony Poynor of the Garden Court Chambers Immigration Team, instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors.

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards.

+ View more awards