(i) The effect of the words ‘are to be refused’ in paragraph 322 of the Immigration Rules is to render refusal of leave to remain the United Kingdom obligatory in cases where any of the listed grounds arises. The decision maker has no discretion. (ii) The doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations is a nuanced, sophisticated … Continue reading Iqbal (Para 322 Immigration Rules): UTIAC 16 Jul 2015
UTIAC The de minimis principle is not engaged in the construction or application of the Immigration Rules. Properly analysed, it is a mere surrogate for the discredited ‘near miss’ or ‘sliding scale’ principle. McLoskey J P [2016] UKUT 186 (IAC) Bailii England and Wales Immigration Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.564171
AIT The finding in AM (Ethiopia),[2008] EWCA Civ 1082, that the Immigration Rules have no over-arching purpose and must be construed sensibly according to the natural meaning of the language employed, is an . .
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 powers of remittal are not to be treated differently, … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 9 Apr 2001
1. There is nothing in the 1972 Immigration Rules (HC 510) that provides that a person who cannot come within one of the categories of the Immigration Rules is to be refused an extension of stay for that reason alone. Rule 4 sets out the ‘main categories’ of people who may be given leave, recognising … Continue reading EK (Ankara Agreement – 1972 Rules-Construction) Turkey: UTIAC 10 Nov 2010
The claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to deport him failed before the adjudicator. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused leave to appeal to that Tribunal. He sought judicial review of that refusal. The issue was whether the ‘public interest’ in paragraph 154 of the Immigration Rules could include the interests of … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Bakhtaur Singh: HL 1986
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 – Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) – Article 13 – Third-country nationals holding a temporary residence permit – National legislation banning the re-entry of those nationals into the territory of the Member State which issued the temporary residence permit in … Continue reading Association Nationale D’Assistance Aux Frontieres Pour Les Etrangers v Ministre de l’Interieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivites territoriales et de l’Immigration: ECJ 14 Jun 2012
UTIAC (1) Self-employed persons were eligible for leave to remain under paragraph 21 of HC 510 if they made an investment in the provision of services of their personal skill provided that they were not engaging in disguised employment or would not have to supplement their business activities by taking employment for which a work … Continue reading Dasdemir (1972 Rules – Self-Employment) Turkey: UTIAC 26 Feb 2013
UTIAC 1. In cases to which the new Immigration Rules introduced as from 9 July 2012 by HC 194 apply, judges should proceed by first considering whether a claimant is able to benefit under the applicable provisions of the Immigration Rules designed to address Article 8 claims. Where the claimant does not meet the requirements … Continue reading Izuazu (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria: UTIAC 30 Jan 2013
UTIAC Prior to the new immigration rules (HC 194) introduced on 9 July 2012, cases involving Article 8 ECHR ordinarily required a two-stage assessment: (1) first to assess whether the decision appealed against was in accordance with the immigration rules; (2) second to assess whether the decision was contrary to the appellant’s Article 8 rights.The … Continue reading MF (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria: UTIAC 31 Oct 2012
Renewed application for leave to bring judicial review on the basis that the adjudicator was alleged to have misapplied the Immigration Rules as to internal flight. The applicant was from Sri Lanka. The applicant’s evidence and submissions that conditions in Colombo were unsafe for him were rejected by the special adjudicator, and there were plain … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Kamalakkanan: CA 29 Jan 1997
UTIAC It cannot be said that UK NARIC has no role in judging the equivalence of a Tier 1 (General) Migrant applicant’s qualification if it is not a foreign qualification since paragraph 5 of Appendix A to HC 395, as amended, expressly gives it that role. Judges: Bannatyne L Citations: [2012] UKUT 58 (IAC) Links: … Continue reading Kamran (UK NARIC – Incorporation In Rules) Pakistan: UTIAC 22 Feb 2012
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 – Schengen Borders Code – Article 13 – Refusal of entry – Article 5 – Entry into the Schengen nationals of third countries subject to the visa requirement – Ministerial Circular – Back of third countries subject to the visa requirement and hold a temporary residence permit – Visa back … Continue reading Association Nationale D’Assistance Aux Frontieres Pour Les Etrangers v Ministre de l’Interieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivites territoriales et de l’Immigration: ECJ 29 Nov 2011
Citations: [2015] EWHC 1689 (Admin) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – The Lord Chancellor v Detention Action CA 29-Jul-2015 The claimant challenged the legality of the Fast Track Rules 2014 which govern appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against refusals by the Secretary of State for the … Continue reading Detention Action v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Others: Admn 12 Jun 2015
The asylum seeker appealed against a decision, saying the notice of hearing had not been received by him. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal rejected his appeal without consideration of his application on the merits and without giving him opportunity to be heard. The adjudicator said he had complied with the rules. Held: Neither the applicant nor … Continue reading Regina (Karagoz) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: QBD 12 May 2003
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act. Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be removed by the clearest of words. A right remained, but it was severely … Continue reading Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 25 Mar 2004
Judgment of the court necessitated by a disagreement as to the terms of the order which properly reflects both OPEN and CLOSED decisions handed down on 18 March 2015. Suffice to say that we have no doubt that the declaration which properly reflects the judgments of the court is: ‘It is declared that, on a … Continue reading The Secretary of State for The Home Department v The Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others: Admn 1 May 2015
(1) Paragraph [D] of Appendix FM-SE is an example, within the context of the requirement to supply specified evidence, of the increasing influence of discretionary powers of waiver and further enquiry in the Immigration Rules. (2) Where applicants wish to invoke any discretion of this kind, they should do so when making the relevant application, … Continue reading Sultana and Others (Rules: Waiver/Further Enquiry; Discretion): UTIAC 12 Nov 2014
IAT This decision is reported for what we say at — 9-18 on the question of whether the Home Office are obliged to search NASS records for the address of any absent appellant, as well as on the point in the key-word. Citations: [2005] UKAIT 00139 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 04 … Continue reading HC (2005 Procedure Rules Ultra Vires?) Iran: IAT 6 Oct 2005
Collins J said: ‘one is entitled to see, whether in all the circumstances, this case falls within the spirit of the Rules or the policies, even if not within the letter.’ Judges: Collins J Citations: [2005] EWHC 745 (Admin) Links: Bailii Cited by: Dicta approved – SB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home … Continue reading Lekstaka, Regina (on the Application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another: Admn 18 Apr 2005
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the chief adjudicator refusing an appeal from a decision of the special adjudicator rejecting his asylum claim. His evidence had been rejected as inconsistent, but he claimed that this was due to an incompetent interpreter. The chief adjudicator had held that the competence of the interpreter … Continue reading Regina (Gashi) v Chief Immigration Adjudicator: QBD 17 Aug 2001
HL Immigration — Appeal — Deportation — Matters to be considered on appeal against deportation — Relevant factors and circumstances — Compassionate circumstances — Appellant illegally overstaying leave to enter — Appellant becoming valued member of Sikh community in United Kingdom — Whether effect of deportation on third party interests a relevant factor or circumstance … Continue reading Singh v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: HL 26 Jun 1986
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
The parties settled an immigration appeal in the last days before the date set for the hearing. Held: Parties should bear in mind the new Court of Appeal rules requiring documents to be lodged early, and for settlements to be agreed if possible early so that listing slots should not be lost. Representatives can expect … Continue reading Jeyapragash, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: CA 21 Sep 2004
The claimant had been ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of being allowed to proceed with the claim which the tribunal had judged to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out after the tribunal had been wrongly told that the deposits had not been paid. The strike out was … Continue reading Immigration Advisory Services v Oommen: EAT 19 Mar 1997
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now subjected to a much more rigorous examination than others, and also that the arrangement put the respondent in … Continue reading European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another: CA 20 May 2003
The applicant had fled Pakistan to claim asylum. His application for judicial review of the decision to reject his request for asylum failed. It had been decided in Scotland. He appealed. Held: It was not open to the Secretary of State to raise on appeal a question as to jurisdiction which had not been raised … Continue reading Regina (Shah) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Secretary of State for the Home Department, interested party: CA 22 Nov 2004
The court declared invalid a discrete part of one of the Immigration Rules which had a discriminatory effect which operated unjustly in the cases of those against whom it discriminated. Judges: Simon Brown J Citations: [1986] IAR 385 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Begum: QBD 1986
An appeal by the Home Secretary against a ruling that he had to use the same prescribed form as would be used by the asylum seeker. The use of a letter which omitted a substantial and important declaration was invalid. Lord Woolf MR made plain the court’s general reluctance to hold that the effect of … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Jeyeanthan: Admn 3 Apr 1998
1. Acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct Where a person faces punishment for a refusal to perform military service that would or might involve acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct, that is capable of amounting to ‘being persecuted’ on grounds of political opinion for the purposes of the Refugee … Continue reading PK and OS (Basic Rules of Human Conduct) Ukraine CG: UTIAC 19 Nov 2020
The Court considered rule 50 under which ‘parent’ was defined as including – ‘an adoptive parent, where there has been a genuine transfer of parental responsibility on the ground of the original parents’ inability to care for the child . . ‘ Held: (a majority) This expression was not confined to adoption under a ‘legally … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Tohur Ali: CA 18 Dec 1987
There is no appeal from the decision of an adjudicator not to recommend that there existed sufficient compassionate grounds for granting exceptional leave to remain in the UK in the absence of any statutory grounds for such a recommendation. A failure to make a recommendation in this situation is not open to judicial review. Citations: … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi: CA 3 Aug 2000
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove the mistake was first produced in the Court of Appeal. The error could … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile: CA 2002
Lord Denning MR said that: ‘Treaties and declarations do not become part of our law until they are made law by Parliament’. Iin relation to the application of broad Convention principles in the context of immigration powers, he said: ‘I desire, however, to amend one of the statements I made in the Bhajan Singh case … Continue reading Regina v Chief Immigration Officer, Heathrow Airport, Ex parte Salamat Bibi: CA 1976
An adjudication officer, finding that an appeal had been abandoned, was entitled accordingly to decide the matter without consideration of the facts. The absence of statutory authority was decisive in view of long standing practice. Rules not ultra vires Citations: Times 25-Sep-1998 Statutes: Asylum and Immigration Act 1993, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 (1996 No … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte Ali: QBD 25 Sep 1998
Where the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dealt with an appeal by remitting the case back to a special adjudicator for a rehearing, it had concluded the appeal, and it did not thereby delegate to the adjudicator its own function of deciding the appeal. There was no distinction to be made between procedural and substantive remittals. Remittal … Continue reading Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: QBD 12 Jun 2001
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
Challenge to change in rules in immigration cases as to admission of evidence not available to both parties. Held: The application for review was refused. The change was in order to bring practice in the IAC into line with other tribunals. Judges: Blake J Citations: [2016] EWHC 218 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 3519, [2016] ACD … Continue reading Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Regina (on The Application of) v Tribunal Procedure Committee and Another: Admn 15 Feb 2016
Request for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national – Application for international protection made by a … Continue reading Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Request for A Preliminary Ruling – Article 99 of The Rules of Procedure of The Court of Justice – Regulation (Eu) No 604/2013 – Determination: ECJ 5 Apr 2017
Discrimination was alleged against the immigration authorities. Held: In dealing with people coming in under the immigration rules, the immigration authorities were not providing ‘services’ within the meaning of the Act. The words the ‘circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act’ are the circumstances in which discrimination is prohibited by the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Kassam: CA 1980
The interpretation of paragraph 334 of the Immigration Rules is subject to the Qualification Directive and the Procedures Directive. Citations: [2016] UKUT 374 (IAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.569341
(1) In judicial review applications transferred by the Administrative Court to the Upper Tribunal, the applicable procedural regime is that contained in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The Civil Procedure Rules have no effect thereafter; although the procedural history may be significant, particularly as regards time limits. (2) The prohibition in rule 29(3) … Continue reading Kimondo, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Relevant Rules; AOS Requirements) (IJR): UTIAC 14 Nov 2014
UTIAC 1. A decision that further submissions do not amount to a ‘fresh claim’ under para 353 of the Immigration Rules is not a decision to refuse a protection or human rights claim and so does not give rise to a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under s.82 of the Nationality, Immigration and … Continue reading MG, Regina (on The Application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (‘Fresh Claim’; Para 353: No Appeal) (IJR): UTIAC 17 May 2016
1. For courts and tribunals, the coming into force of Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (ss.117A-D) has not altered the need for a two-stage approach to Article 8 claims. 2. Ordinarily a court or tribunal will, as a first stage, consider an appellant’s Article 8 claim by reference to the … Continue reading Bossade (Ss117A-D-Interrelationship With Rules): UTIAC 16 Jul 2015
UTIAA On the current state of the authorities: (a) the maintenance requirements of E-LTRP.3.1-3.2 stand, although Blake J in R (on the application of MM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin) said that they could constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the ability of spouses to live together; … Continue reading Gulshan (Article 8 – New Rules – Correct Approach) Pakistan: UTIAC 17 Dec 2013
UTIAC 1. In Nagre v SSHD [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) the Administrative Court approved the guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Izuazu [2013] UKUT 45 (IAC) in turn endorsing the two stage approach recommended by the Upper Tribunal in MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 393 (IAC). Sales J added the proviso … Continue reading Green (Article 8 – New Rules) Jamaica: UTIAC 13 May 2013
Return To UK to fight Citizenship Withdrawal The appellant had, as a 15 year old, left to go to Iraq to be the ISIL terrorist group. She married an ISIL fighter and they had three children, the last one dying. Her citizenship of the UK had been withdrawn by the respondent leaving an entitlement to … Continue reading Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others: CA 16 Jul 2020
UTIAC 1 The expectation is that it will be an exceptional case in which permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal should be granted where the lodging of the application for permission is more than 28 days out of time. Where, in such a case, a judge is minded to grant permission, the preferable course … Continue reading Ogundimu (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria: UTIAC 8 Feb 2013
AIT Rule 30 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 as amended by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2008, should be read in conjunction with rule 31(4)(c). If . .
(1) In an application for entry clearance as the partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom, the financial requirements in E-ECP.3.1 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules regarding income from employment relate to the period of . .
References: [1988] 2 FLR 523, [1988] Imm AR 237, [1988] Fam Law 289 Links: Refworld Coram: May, Balcombe, Woolf LJJ The Court considered rule 50 under which ‘parent’ was defined as including – ‘an adoptive parent, where there has been a genuine transfer of parental responsibility on the ground of the original parents’ inability to … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Tohur Ali: CA 1988
The claimant challenged the refusal to treat as valid an application submitted under paragraph 34 of the Immigration Rules for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant. . .
The claimant challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse to treat his claim to indefinite leave on family grounds as a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules and her decision to refuse to grant him and his wife and four . .
UTIAC In considering the conjoined Article 8 ECHR claims of multiple family members decision-makers should first apply the Immigration Rules to each individual applicant and, if appropriate, then consider Article . .
Appeals by Iranian citizen against the decision by the respondent to refuse her a visit visa further to paragraph 41(i) and 41(ii) of the Immigration Rules. . .
Application for for judicial review to challenge the decision of the respondent not to treat her representations as a fresh asylum or human rights claim, pursuant to paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, the decision being supplemented by a letter . .
The court considered the meaning of the term ‘unduly harsh’ in paragraph 399 of the Immigration Rules and section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. . .
Challenge to validity of immigration rules. . .
Request for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to treat a series of further representations made on behalf of the Claimant as a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. . .
The Secretary of State appealed against the determination allowing the Respondent’s appeal under the Immigration Rules against the refusal of his application for entry clearance as a visitor. . .
AIT (1) The requirement in paragraph 159A(ii) of the immigration rules that there be evidence of a connection between the employer and the employee is of particular importance. It will be a question of fact in . .
AIT The definition of ‘an external student’ in para 6 of the Immigration Rules makes it clear that, to comply with para 57(iv), an external student must be registered as studying for a degree from a UK degree . .
The appellant was detained under immigration rules. He refused to provide details of his nationality and now complained of his continuing detention in the light of a finding that he was unlikely to be returnable to Algeria, that being what was . .
Appeal by the Secretary of State against the determination of First-tier Tribunal allowing, under the Immigration Rules, the appeal of the Appellant against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer in Abu Dhabi to refuse entry clearance as a . .
The claimant sought judicial review of the failure on the part of the Secretary of State to deal with three applications that have been made by the claimant: firstly, an application for statelessness, secondly, submissions made under rules 353A and 353B of the Immigration Rules; and, thirdly, an application for a Home Office travel document. … Continue reading Ogilvy, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 5 Feb 2021
‘The three appellants are siblings. They appealed against the respondent’s refusal to issue them with entry clearance to settle in the United Kingdom with their mother who is their sponsor. In a determination their appeals were dismissed under the Immigration Rules by Immigration Judge Parker, but allowed on Article 8 grounds.’ Citations: [2009] EWCA Civ … Continue reading JB (India) and others v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 11 Feb 2009
When deciding whether to order a deportation, the Home Secretary will have much material not before the courts, including as to conditions in the place to which the applicant might be deported), and he is better placed to take a wider policy-based view on the key question as to whether removal can be justified as … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Dinc: CA 15 Mar 1999
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 he was deported to Algeria. The authorities there … Continue reading B v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 30 Jul 2008
Consideration of aspects of the Points-Based System (‘PBS’) relating to applications for leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrants. In essence, what is said is that a particular requirement of the scheme, as contained in paragraph 41-SD(c) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, has proved impossible of fulfilment by the applicant; that in … Continue reading Junied, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2019
Renewed application for permission to appeal – applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the applicant indefinite leave to remain, which had been sought pursuant to the Secretary of State’s long stay policy contained in paragraphs 276(A) to (B) of the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 395). Inherent in … Continue reading Mutlu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2007
1. In applications for entry clearance, the starting and significant point in applications for entry clearance is the Article 8 rights of the sponsor or others in the UK. A fact sensitive analysis is essential. 2. There is no blanket prohibition on the relatives of refugees other than a spouse and/or children. 3. As was … Continue reading KF and Others (Entry Clearance, Relatives of Refugees) Syria: UTIAC 11 Dec 2019
The correct approach, where an appeal on human rights grounds has been brought in seeking to resist deportation, is to consider: i. is the appellant a foreign criminal as defined by s117D (2) (a), (b) or (c); ii. if so, does he fall within paragraph 399 or 399A of the Immigration Rules; iii. if not … Continue reading Chege (Section 117D D Article 8 D Approach : Kenya): UTIAC 5 Mar 2015
(1) The Upper Tribunal can apply rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 of its own motion. (2) The use of fraud before the Upper Tribunal constitutes an abuse of process such as to amount to a ‘procedural irregularity’ for the purposes of rule 43(2)(d). (3) In a case involving a decision … Continue reading Abbasi (Rule 43; Para 322, : Accountants’ Evidence) Pakistan: UTIAC 8 Jan 2020
(i) A decision of the Secretary of State not to grant indefinite leave to remain to a person subject to the restricted leave policy (‘the RL policy’) does not normally engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Article 8 may be engaged by a decision to refuse to grant indefinite leave … Continue reading MBT, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Restricted Leave; ILR; Disability Discrimination): UTIAC 13 Dec 2019
(1) Paragraph 34 [A-F] of the Immigration Rules is to be construed by the application of the ordinary principles of statutory construction, which start from the natural meaning of the words in their context. (2) Paragraph 34 requires applicants to make an application for leave to remain in accordance with the provisions of 34. (3) … Continue reading Bajracharya, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Para 34 – Variation – Validity): UTIAC 20 Nov 2019
Questions as to the proper interpretation of para 317(i) of the Immigration Rules (‘the Rules’) and the application of articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) to that paragraph Citations: [2008] EWCA Civ 102, [2008] Imm AR 490, [2008] INLR 590 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration, Human … Continue reading MB (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 20 Feb 2008
(1) The word ‘partner’ is not defined in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The definition of ‘partner’ in GEN 1.2 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules does not govern the way in which ‘partner’ is to be interpreted in Part 5A. (2) A person who satisfies the definition in … Continue reading Buci (Part 5A: ‘Partner’ : Albania): UTIAC 27 Feb 2020
The applicant had been granted leave to enter the UK as a student. He challenged by way of review a decision to curtail that leave. He had taken part time work. Held: The decision to revoke the leave was unlawful. The statement said that he had been given leave to enter the country as a … Continue reading Kan Zhou v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 31 Jan 2003
On its true construction, para 352A(iii) of the Immigration Rules is satisfied by showing nothing more than the formal existence of a marriage or civil partnership as at the time of the refugee’s departure from his/her country of former habitual residence. In contrast to less formal relationships, there is no requirement to show that the … Continue reading Sahebi (Para 352(III): Meaning of ‘Existed’) Pakistan: UTIAC 12 Nov 2019
(1) In its application to a ‘qualifying child’ within the meaning of section 117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 117C(5) imposes the same two requirements as are specified in paragraph 399(a)(ii) of the Immigration Rules; namely, that it would be unduly harsh for the child to leave the United Kingdom and … Continue reading Patel (British Citizen Child – Deportation): UTIAC 29 Jan 2020
Appeal and cross appeal concerning the appellant’s challenge to changes made by the respondent to the Immigration Rules and guidance affecting the right of Turkish self-employed businesspeople and their dependants to obtain indefinite leave to remain (‘ILR’) in the United Kingdom. Citations: [2020] EWCA Civ 553 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 24 … Continue reading Alliance of Turkish Business People Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Apr 2020
The child was to come to the UK to stay with relatives. Permission was refused. Held: To be allowed to come, it had to be shown that the child would be maintained here without recourse to public funds and by the people he or she was to stay with. In this case that support was … Continue reading MW (Liberia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2007
The applicants sought to enter the UK to be with their parents. The respondent found that the possibility of violence from the father meant that they would not have suitable accomodation within the meaning of the rules. Held: The consideration of whether suitable accomodation was available was not limited to the physical accomodation offered, but … Continue reading M and Another (Children) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Feb 2003
The court was asked: did the professional level qualification of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) qualify or count as a qualification which entitled an applicant (if otherwise qualified) to leave to remain under the (now abolished) Tier 1 (Post – Study Work) Migrants route of the Points Based System in the Immigration Rules; … Continue reading Syed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Apr 2013
The applicant appealed against refusal of her challenge to the regulations requiring certain standards of spoken English in foreign spouses seeking to come here to be with their settled or British Citizen spouse. Held: The imposition of the requirement was a proportionate response. Judges: Maurice Kay VP, Toulson LJJ, Sir David Keene Citations: [2013] EWCA … Continue reading Bibi and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 12 Apr 2013
UTIAC i) The exercise of the duty by the Entry Clearance Officer to assess an application under the Immigration Rules as to whether there are family or other considerations making the child’s exclusion undesirable inevitably involves an assessment of what the child’s welfare and best interests require.ii) Where an immigration decision engages Article 8 rights, … Continue reading Mundeba (S55 and Para 297(I) (F)) Democratic Republic of Congo: UTIAC 26 Feb 2013
Application for judicial review of the lawfulness of certain additions to the Immigration Rules. Judges: Sales J Citations: [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Immigration Rules Immigration Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472093
UTIAC (1) The effect of section 85A(3)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is such that Exception 2 can apply where an appeal is brought against an immigration decision of a kind specified in section 82(2)(a) or (d), whether or not the appeal includes, or is treated by section 85(1) as including, an … Continue reading Mushtaq (S 85A, (A): Scope; Academic Progress) Pakistan: UTIAC 8 Feb 2013
UTIAC A decision to revoke or refuse to renew a grant of asylum under paragraph 339A of the Immigration Rules only relates to the individual’s status under the Qualification Directive (European refugee status) and not his status under the Refugee Convention; further, it can only apply to cases in which the asylum application was made … Continue reading Dang (Refugee – Query Revocation – Article 3) Vietnam: UTIAC 28 Jan 2013
The court was asked as to the meaining of ‘having available’ in Appendix C of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395 as amended, in its application to Tier 1 of the Points-Based Scheme. Judges: CMG Ockleton VP, Grubb UTJ Citations: [2012] UKUT 364 (IAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: … Continue reading Rajbhandari (PBS: Funds – Available) Nepal: UTIAC 8 Oct 2012
Application for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State refusing to treat his additional submissions as giving rise to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. Judges: Allen UTJ Citations: [2012] UKUT 367 (IAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466466
UTIAC 1. The requirement to show that a person or persons can be maintained (or will maintain themselves) ‘adequately’ without recourse to public funds has long been a requirement of the immigration rules. It continues to be a requirement for various categories of person in the amended rules that came into force in July 2012. … Continue reading Yarce (Adequate Maintenance: Benefits) Colombia: UTIAC 30 Nov 2012
The short point raised by this appeal is whether an employer’s pension contributions form part of a person’s ‘earnings’ for the purpose of calculating whether he meets the requirements for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant under paragraph 245C of the Immigration Rules. Judges: Richards, Kitchin LJJ, Peter Smith J Citations: [2012] … Continue reading JE (Uganda) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 14 Nov 2012
Rolled up hearing for permission and, if permission be granted, the substantive hearing of a challenge to an amendment made in November 2010 to the Immigration Rules laid before Parliament by the respondent, Secretary of State. In essence, these claimants challenge those parts of the rules that require a person seeking entry clearance to join … Continue reading Bhavyesh and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jul 2012
UTIAC (1) In deciding an application for permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, a judge of that Chamber should consider carefully the utility of granting permission only on limited grounds. In practice, such a limited grant is unlikely to be as helpful as a … Continue reading Ferrer (Limited Appeal Grounds; Alvi) Philippines: UTIAC 1 Aug 2012
The procedural issue: appeals under section 11 of the TCEA 2007 (1) The appellate regime established by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended, is concerned with outcomes comprising the determination of available grounds of appeal; (2) A party who has achieved the exact outcome(s) sought by way of an appeal to the … Continue reading Binaku (S 11 TCEA; S 117C NIAA; Para 399D): UTIAC 27 Jan 2021
UTIAC The First-tier Tribunal Judge had not erred in law in finding that attendance at a course over a period of three months was not a course of study ‘of at least one academic year in duration’ under paragraph 245 HD (g) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395). Judges: McFarlane LJ, Warr UTJ Citations: [2012] … Continue reading Kunnel (Length of Academic Year) India: UTIAC 12 Jun 2012
UTIAC (1) In an appeal arising from the refusal of an application under paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, the burden of proof is upon the respondent to establish on a balance of probabilities that the requirements of that paragraph are made out. Consequently, where the refusal concerns the alleged service of Forms IS151A, IS151A … Continue reading Singh (Paragraph 320 (7A) – Is151A Forms – Proof) India: UTIAC 25 Apr 2012
UTIAC 1) UKBA’s announcement in March 2011 of changes to the Immigration Rules which came into force on 21 April 2011 means that in general those who stood to be affected by those changes had adequate time to take appropriate action and hence that in general no Patel fairness issues arise.2) This applies to the … Continue reading Contractor (Cas – Tier 4) India: UTIAC 23 May 2012
The complainant requested information from the Home office about submissions as set out in paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, which they received and processed in the years 2017/18 to 2019/20. The Home Office had failed to provide a substantive response to this request by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that … Continue reading Home Office (Central Government): ICO 21 Oct 2020