The structure and content of the country information section follows a terms of reference which sets out the general and specific topics relevant to this note.Īll information included in the note was published or made publicly available on or before the ‘cut-off’ date(s) in the country information section. Namely, taking into account the COI’s relevance, reliability, accuracy, balance, currency, transparency and traceability. The country information in this note has been carefully selected in accordance with the general principles of COI research as set out in the Common EU Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information (COI), April 2008, and the Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation’s (ACCORD), Researching Country Origin Information – Training Manual, 2013. If a claim is refused, it is likely or unlikely to be certifiable as ‘clearly unfounded’ under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.ĭecision makers must, however, still consider all claims on an individual basis, taking into account each case’s specific facts. That the security situation is such that there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of serious harm because there exists a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in a situation of international or internal armed conflict as within paragraphs 339C and 339CA(iv) of the Immigration RulesĪ person is able to obtain protection from the state (or quasi state bodies)Ī person is reasonably able to relocate within a country or territoryĪ claim is likely to justify granting asylum, humanitarian protection or other form of leave, and That the general humanitarian situation is so severe that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of serious harm because conditions amount to inhuman or degrading treatment as within paragraphs 339C and 339CA(iii) of the Immigration Rules / Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) This section analyses the evidence relevant to this note - that is information in the COI section refugee/human rights laws and policies and applicable caselaw - by describing this and its inter-relationships, and provides an assessment of, in general, whether one or more of the following applies:Ī person is reasonably likely to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm These are explained in more detail below. It is split into 2 parts: (1) an assessment of COI and other evidence and (2) COI. It is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of a particular subject or theme. “It needs emphasis that such a leak was in total violation of the orders of the Supreme court that had directed that such proceedings should remain confidential,” said the lawyers for Sunni Waqf Board.This note provides country of origin information (COI) and analysis of COI for use by Home Office decision makers handling particular types of protection and human rights claims (as set out in the Introduction section). Shakil Ahmed, another advocate -on-record for Sunni Waqf Board, said that the leak to the press may have been inspired by either Mediation Committee directly or those who participated in the said mediation proceedings or participants. However, another advocates associated with Sunni Waqf Board has expressed disagreement in connection with the settlement on the dispute through mediation. The report was filed in the court on Wednesday morning. Rizvi said the court-appointed mediation panel had filed a report in the apex court based on terms and conditions on which the parties which include the Waqf Board, Nirvani Akhara and three other Hindu parties. Ram Lalla and the Nirmohi Akhara did not participate in the second round of mediation. On the behest of Muslim parties, the Supreme Court opened the door of the second round of mediation In the middle of September. The day-to-day hearing began in the case from August 6 and on October 16, the top court reserved its verdict. In March, the top court has appointed a mediation to amicably settle the issue but when it failed to achieve its goal, the top court agreed to hear the arguments of all parties. But Rizvi claim was denied by the counsel representing the Board in the top court and they have refused to comment on the nature of the settlement.

Sunni faqt board top people