The applicant, a Kuwaiti citizen of previous good character had been ordered to be deported after serving a sentence for drugs and dishonesty. He sought review of the IAT’s refusal of his appeal, arguing that Rule 162 of the 1983 rules required the Home Secretary to apply the same rules to both EC and non-EC … Continue reading Al-Sabah (Sheikh Mohammed Nasser) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: CA 1992
Immigration – Detention – Illegal entrant – Illegal entrant not given leave to enter or remain in United Kingdom – Detention pending directions for removal – Persons entering United Kingdom and present there in breach of immigration laws – Commonwealth immigrant – Immigrant entering United Kingdom clandestinely in breach of laws relating to Commonwealth immigrants … Continue reading Azam and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: HL 11 Jun 1973
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention reason. Held: Cases involving claims for refugee status under the Convention are particularly fact-sensitive. The … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar: HL 20 Mar 2003
The claimant alleged false imprisonment after his asylum application. Held: The court will assess the legality of a continued detention on an objective basis; but review is not restricted to a review of the Secretary of State’s decision on Wednesbury grounds. Judges: Field, The Honourable Mr Justice Field Citations:  EWHC 1884 (QB) Links: Bailii … Continue reading Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef v The Home Office: QBD 30 Jul 2004
The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit. Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a defence of illegality to a teacher’s complaint against a school of unlawful discrimination by … Continue reading V v Addey and Stanhope School: CA 30 Jul 2004
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that proceedings were about to be initiated would be disregarded, however credible that information might be. Held: The … Continue reading Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 2003
The claimant, a Somali woman, had arrived at Gatwick Airport from Yemen at 10.30 pm on 29 August 1999 and not claimed asylum until 31 August (the intervening day being a bank holiday). Her reason for not claiming at Gatwick was that she was accompanied by an agent who unsurprisingly was concerned that nothing be … Continue reading Shire v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 13 Oct 2003
The appellant, a Turkish citizen entered illegally and claimed asylum. He falsely said he had not sought asylum in another EC country. He had lived in Germany for eight years, and had twice unsuccessfully claimed asylum. Shortly after arrangements were made for his removal to Germany, he married a woman whom he had known in … Continue reading Ekinci, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jun 2003
The appellant had sought to enter the UK. She first showed an entry clearence certificate which had been obtained by deception. She then sought entry as a student. The officer refused, saying that he had no discretion in the matter. The plaintiff said that he did have a discretion, and that therefore the refusl was … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Alexander: HL 5 Jul 1982
If a magistrate’s warrant be shown by the constable who has the execution of it to the person charged with an offence, and he thereupon, without compulsion, attend the constable to the magistrate, and after examination be dismissed, it seems this is not suoh an arrest as will support trespass and false imprisonment. Citations:  … Continue reading Arrowsmith v Le Mesurier: 13 Jun 1806
The applicant sought admission to the UK. In the past he had made utterances which were capable of being racist. He claimed to have recanted, and had given undertakings as to his behaviour. At first instance it was held that the Home Secretary had failed to demonstrate an objective reason for refusing admission. It was … Continue reading Farrakhan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 30 Apr 2002
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of liberty as to be unlawful. Held: The appeal failed. When looking at the lawfulness of … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others: HL 31 Oct 2007
For the tort of false imprisonment to be committed, the deprivation of liberty must be actual, rather than potential: ‘Nothing short of actual detention and complete loss of freedom would support an action for false imprisonment.’ Judges: Lord Macnaghten Citations: (1903) 19 TLR 496, (1903) 30 Ind App 154 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Approved … Continue reading Syed Mahamad Yusuf-ud-Din v Secretary of State for India: 1903
The defendant had surrendered to his bail at a Magistrates Court. There was no usher and no security staff. Following imposition of a custodial sentence, the defendant escaped through the public entrance. It was submitted on an appeal that the defendant was not under ‘direct’ control of anyone. Held: Buxton LJ dealt with this submission … Continue reading Regina v Rumble: CACD 2003
Misuse of Power for ulterior object D1 and D2 lent C 80 pounds repayable in 1837, secured by a mortgage on C’s vessel. C was to be free to continue to use the vessel in the interim but the law forbade its use if he were to cease to hold its register. In 1836 the … Continue reading Grainger v Hill: CEC 1838
The Union set a picket round a camp set up by anti-logging protesters to prevent the protesters getting out. The protesters could have asked the police to escort them out, but that did not mean that they were not imprisoned until they did so. But the protesters could also have escaped at any time along … Continue reading McFadzean and Others v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union and Others: 13 Dec 2007
ECJ The free movement of workers enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty entails the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment. The period of time for which the person seeking employment may stay may … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen: ECJ 26 Feb 1991
Appeal against conviction for assisting unlawful immigration. Judges: Raffety LJ, Foskett J, Carey HHJ Citations:  EWCA Crim 43 Links: Bailii Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 25 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.542249
A fresh refusal was to be given after an asylum application had been rejected to allow an appeal. Citations: Independent 30-Sep-1994 Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87765
Whether detention under the 1971 Act pending deportation had been unlawful. Judges: Mr Justice Mostyn Citations:  EWHC 3289 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.656797
The Home Secretary may evaluate fresh material himself under the section, without always referring the case back to the adjudicator. Citations: Times 03-Jan-1996 Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 21 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Adopted – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Bellow 25-May-1995 . . Adopted – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Khaldoon 8-Nov-1995 … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Owalabi: QBD 3 Jan 1996
The Home Secretary need not consider any risk of torture as an issue separate from that of persecution, when considering making an order for deportation. Citations: Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993 Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ex parte Chahal: QBD 5 Apr 1993
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. International law prohibiting torture has the character of jus cogens … Continue reading Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3): HL 24 Mar 1999
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Held: ‘l, decided that on the principle of Lane v. Esdaile the House had no jurisdiction … Continue reading In re Poh: HL 1983
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
The Secretary of State had detained two persons who were awaiting removal with the object that they should testify in a pending criminal trial. Lord Parker J rejected the suggestion that the detention could be justified as reasonable in these circumstances, stating: ‘it does seem to me that while a reasonable time is contemplated between … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Richmond Remand Centre, Ex Parte Asghar: QBD 1971
Where a citizen of a member state had been granted temporary admission, pending a final decision on whether she should be admitted or expelled, that decision was not one which could be classified as a ‘decision concerning entry,’ for the purposes of the directive, and by legal fiction the person was deemed to be out … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yiadom Case C-357/98: ECJ 16 Nov 2000
A deportee after a marriage was to be treated in the same way as others despite desertion from ship. The application of the Home Secretary’s discretion under the Policy was in issue. The case ‘raises a novel question about the extent to which departmental policy is amenable to judicial review’. ‘these legal controls upon the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Urmaza: QBD 23 Jul 1996
The rule which deemed an appellant to have received notice of the determination of his appeal two days after it was posted, irrespective of whether it in fact was received by him was ultra vires and unlawful. The effect of such a rule was draconian and could not be justified by reference to the Act … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Saleem: QBD 11 Nov 1999
There is no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against either a decision of an adjudicator to make or one to refuse to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State when he was himself refusing an appeal. Nor is such a decision subject to judicial review. This practice, unlike that on granting an appeal, … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Anderson, Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi: QBD 22 Mar 2000
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day following their arrival. Held: The appeal by the Secretary of State … Continue reading Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same: HL 3 Nov 2005
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept because of other convictions. He was arrested for the rape after … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999: HL 14 Dec 2000
The applicant was a Pakistani seaman who had deserted from his ship and his presence in the UK was unlawful under the 1962 Act. He nevertheless claimed to be entitled to enter and remain as a person who had been ordinarily resident here for two years. Held: The court rejected his claim: ‘The point turns … Continue reading In re Abdul Manan: CA 1971
 EWHC 2690 (Admin) Bailii Immigration Act 1971 England and Wales Immigration Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.245764
Three applicants had sought an extension of their leave to remain pending the determination of an application to vary the period of leave. In each case, the applications had been faulty, either for non-payment of fees, or failure to provide biometric information. The appellants contended that an application which was ‘invalid’ under the regulations was … Continue reading Iqbal and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2015
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The bank sought to have the direction given under section 7 of the 2008 Act. … Continue reading Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2): SC 19 Jun 2013
UTIAC Leave that has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 is invalidated by section 10(8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 where a decision is made under section 10 to remove the person having such leave. Lane UTJ  UKUT 494 (IAC) Bailii England and Wales Immigration Updated: … Continue reading Ali, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (S3C Extended Leave: Invalidation) (IJR): UTIAC 8 Oct 2014
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal immigrant. Held: The term ‘illegal immigrant’ included anyone entering unlawfully. … Continue reading Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department: HL 10 Feb 1983
The appellant sought to challenge an order for his detention pending his deportation by the respondent. A national of a non EU state he had married an EU national resident in the UK. He had been convicted of offences here and detained pending deportation on grounds of publicpolicy. Held: the Court of Appeal dismissed the … Continue reading Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 10 Dec 2013
The claimant sought damages, alleging: ‘oppressive questioning, unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, unlawful search of her home, theft and / or failure to secure her home premises, and the wrongful declaration by the UKBA that she was an illegal migrant subject to removal under Immigration Act 1971 s.10 provisions’ and theft. The court now considered the … Continue reading Poonam v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 18 Jul 2013
UTIAC The term ‘valid leave’, as appears at paragraph 399(b)(i) of the Immigration Rules, means leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971. Periods of temporary admission cannot be counted when calculating whether a person has achieved the necessary 15 years residence under that rule. Kebede, Kopieczek, Reeds UTJJ  UKUT 310 (IAC) … Continue reading Pembele v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Paragraph 399(b)(i) – Valid Leave – Meaning) Democratic Republic of Congo: UTIAC 10 Jun 2013
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents. Held: The legislation must be interpreted to give effect to Parliament’s intention, even if that meant adding … Continue reading Liversidge v Sir John Anderson: HL 3 Nov 1941
patelUTIAL201505 S.3C(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 prohibits an application for leave to remain that is made on the same day as, and even if said to be simultaneous with, the applicant’s withdrawal of his appeal before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Gill UTJ  UKUT 273 (IAC) Bailii Immigration Act 1971 3C(4) … Continue reading Patel, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (S3C, : Simultaneous Application – Withdrawal) (IJR): UTIAC 6 May 2015
The appellant said that his conviction for assisting breaches of immigration law in his work as an immigration adviser by creating false documentation to support clients’ applications for extensions of leave to stay was not itself an allegation of facilitating breaches of ‘immigration law’, but rather of more general criminal offences. Held: The appeal was … Continue reading Dhall v Regina: CACD 27 Sep 2013
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her presence here had come to be a criminal offence under the 1971 Act. Held: The authorities … Continue reading Mark v Mark: HL 30 Jun 2005
The claimant challenged his detention under the 1971 Act, now appealing against refusal of judicial review. His asylum claims had been rejected, and he had been convicted of various offences, including failures to answer bail. He had failed to report as required to comply with the deportation requirements. He had been transferred to a prison … Continue reading MC (Algeria), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Mar 2010
Standing may not be enough for JR The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and rendition of detainees in the aftermath of events in the USA on 11 … Continue reading Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister: Admn 30 Jun 2020
The court was asked whether under the 2002 Act it is possible to challenge by way of appeal to the AIT an immigration decision under section 82(2)(h) to remove an illegal entrant, where the ground of appeal is an allegation that removal directions for the proposed country of return could not lawfully be made pursuant … Continue reading MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 Jan 2009
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several months, during which time her benefits were cancelled. Held: The result was to leave the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva: HL 26 Jun 2003
Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over judgments and orders of the High Court made by … Continue reading In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company: HL 3 Jul 1980
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he had then been detained was too long and that the … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh: QBD 13 Dec 1983
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away were detained. Held: The detention was short, and was justified by the need for speed. The … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others: HL 31 Oct 2002
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than others, and that it was contrary to the obligations of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for staying. Held: The appeals succeeded. By 1969, immigration rules had by law shed the … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina: CA 23 Jun 2010
The House considered whether the Secretary of State for Health acted lawfully in issuing guidance as to the employment of foreign doctors to employing bodies within the National Health Service in April 2006. Held: The secretary of state’s appeal failed. The fact that the guidance differentiated between NHS service and private medical care indicated that … Continue reading BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: HL 30 Apr 2008
The Court was asked as to: ‘the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the current points-based system of immigration control.’ The appellant’s license to sponsor . .
(1) A defect in framing the primary condition of bail granted by the First-tier Tribunal under paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 does not render the grant of bail void. There has, rather, been a valid but defective grant of . .
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
The claimant an asylum seeker sought damages for false imprisonment when, escaping slavery in England and applying for asylum she had been held in a detention centre. . .
The claimants said that changes to the Highy Skilled Migrant Programme were unfairly introduced, that they had effectively barred non-EU doctors from applying for first tier doctor appointments, and that the guidance could properly be derived only . .
Appeal against refusal of certificate of entitlement to a right of abode. . .
The Secretary of State appealed an order requiring him to reconsider refusal of exceptional leave to remain. The applicant was an Iraqi Kurd. It was not possible to make immediate arrangements for repatriation after the order.
Held: The . .
The claimant sought to argue that paragraph 2A of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act does not apply to indefinite leave to remain and to challenge the decision of the defendant to suspend his leave to remain pending further police enquiries relating to . .
The application raised two issues: the Tribunal’s power to remit a case for rehearing by an adjudicator, and when an order made by a lone chairman of the Tribunal may be varied or set aside. The Tribunal only has the powers it is given. The two . .
Appeal against an order made by the Secretary of State that it will be conducive to the public good that he should be deported, on the grounds that his removal is in the interests of national security. The appellant said that he would not be safe if . .
An issue arose as to whether the Secretary of State was required by section 18 of the Immigration Act 1981 to make regulations concerning the giving of notice of a decision for the purposes of appeal. if regulations were not made, the right of . .
UTIAC (1) It is clear that income from illegal employment in the host Member State on the part of a parent of a ‘Chen’ child (Case c-200/02 Chen  ECR I-9925) cannot create self-sufficiency for that child (W . .
The applicant had had his application for asylum rejected. Pending deportation, he had been held in custody. The court had found his detention unlawful.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The power to detain in such circumstances had . .
UTIAC (1) The Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003 do not apply to a decision under the Immigration Act 1971, which is not an immigration decision within the meaning of section 82 of the Nationality, . .
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. . .
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
The Employment Tribunal erred in law in awarding compensation for loss of earnings for a period after the Claimant’s leave to remain in this country, extended under . .
There is an ‘administrative, financial and indeed social burden borne as a result of failed asylum seekers’. . .
Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat . .
Local Authority may come to its own conclusion as to immigrant status for housing. . .
The Appellant had been given leave under section 3(1)(b) of the 1971 Act to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for 12 months. Before it expired, he applied for his leave to be varied by way of extension under section 3(3)(a) of the Act. The . .
The offence of being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for illegal entry of aliens into the United Kingdom was committed if the constituents of the offence were shown. That did not necessitate the actual bringing of someone into the UK. . .
The applicant had been given indefinite leave to remain in England, but was later convicted of indecent assault, and recommended for deportation. On appeal the court said that the order for deportation was disproportionate. After serving his . .
The claimant challenged his continued detention under the 1971 Act after his appeal to the Immigration Appeal tribunal had been successful. He had been accused of rape, but was convicted of a sexual assault, though still serious. Before being . .
A Judge must state the reasons for recommending deportation or the order will be invalid. The defendant had been convicted of criminal damage being reckless as to whether wlife was endangered. In the absence of such reasons the defendant would be . .
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of his detention under the 1971 Act. . .
An asylum seeker who was found to be destitute and had failed in his application was entitled to restricted support under the section. The respondent implemented a policy restricting the restriction on the use of the power to those who had some . .
The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .
An entry into the UK at an airport, for immigration law purposes, was not on disembarkation, nor on going toward immigration control, but only took place when the immigration officer was approached. . .
The issue on this appeal is the effect of section 55 on the legality of the appellant’s detention under paragraph 16 over a period of 13 days. At the time of the detention the Secretary of State acted in the mistaken but reasonable belief that he . .
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to allow her indefinite leave to remain in the UK with her husband and family.
Held: On the facts presented, the interference with the applicant’s family life was such as to . .
The Secretary of State’s failure to make a removal decision at the same time as, or shortly after, the decision to refuse leave to remain was unlawful. . .
A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator’s determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power . .
The respondent, a stateless person with an identity certificate rather than a passport, had obtained entry clearance to the UK by falsely representing that he was a single man.
Held: Where fraud has been exercised to obtain leave to enter that . .
The court considered the proper approach to be adopted, in light of new Immigration Rules promulgated in July 2012, to applications for leave to enter the United Kingdom by persons who are family members of someone already present here. . .
The appellants, Turkish Cypriots, arrived on visitor permits, but after extensions, were given notice that their leave to stay would come to an end.
Held: The appeal failed. The notice given was in the form disapproved in Suthendram, but the . .
The action group appealed against refusal of a judicial review of guidelines as to the employment of non-EU doctors, saying that they were in effect immigration rules and issuable only under the 1971 Act. The court had said that since the guidance . .
New evidence admitted by the tribunal had to be ‘relevant to the decision actually made’. . .
A Bangladeshi woman entered into an arranged polygamous marriage in Bangladesh and many years later dishonestly (led by her husband) obtained entry clearance as a visitor before then unsuccessfully seeking leave to remain as being financially . .