UKUT 434 (IAC) Bailii England and Wales Immigration Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551566
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  UKUT 186 (IAC) Bailii England and Wales Immigration Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.564171
AIT The finding in AM (Ethiopia), 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 . .
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
 UKUT 565 (IAC) Bailii England and Wales Immigration Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543191
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  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  EWHC 720 (Admin) the Administrative Court approved the guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Izuazu  UKUT 45 (IAC) in turn endorsing the two stage approach recommended by the Upper Tribunal in MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria  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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 – . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 – . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
(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 . .
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.’ . .
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 . .
HL Immigration — Appeal — Deportation — Matters to be considered on appeal against deportation — Relevant factors and circumstances — Compassionate circumstances — Appellant illegally overstaying leave to . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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. . .
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 . .
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 . . ‘
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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. . .
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 . .
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. . .
References:  2 FLR 523,  Imm AR 237,  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 . .
AIT The new-style Immigration Rules governing Tier 1 (Post Study Work) contain a Maintenance Funds requirement in mandatory terms that admit of no discretion and make no allowance for sickness or other mitigating . .
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 . .
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 . .
(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 . .
(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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
Application for judicial review of the lawfulness of certain additions to the Immigration Rules. . .
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) . .
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. . .
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. . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
A child sought entry clearance as a de facto adopted child of his sponsor who had accepted status of refugee.
Held: The changes to the Immigration rules did not extend those rules beyond application to natural and adopted children so far as de . .
i) It is for a claimant to establish that the requirements of the Immigration Rules are met or that an immigration decision would be an interference with established family life. In both cases, the relevant standard for establishing the facts is the . .
UTIAC The requirement of a connection between employer and employee in paragraph 159A(ii) of the Immigration Rules, when it applies, is a requirement of a connection going beyond that of employment. . .
Challenge to the amendments to paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules requiring the foreign spouses and partners of British citizens or persons settled in the UK applying for what I shall refer to as ‘spouse visas’, that is for leave to enter the UK . .
UTIAC 1. The Immigration Rules make no provision for the admission of fiance(e)s of refugees who are in the United Kingdom with limited leave. In FH (Post-flight spouses) Iran  UKUT 275 (IAC), the Upper . .
UTIAC (1) Where it applies, s. 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 precludes certain evidence from being relied on, in order to show compliance with the Immigration Rules.
(2) ‘Fairness’ . .
The governing principle laid down by Pankina as understood and applied in subsequent cases was that a substantive or material change to the content of the Immigration Rules must be made by way of amending rules which must be laid before Parliament, . .
UTIAC For the purposes of paragraph 352D of the Immigration Rules, an adopted child can include a de facto adoption under paragraph 309A but a parent who is a refugee will normally not be able to meet the . .
The claimants had each settled within the UK in accordance with Immigration rules, but now challenged refusal of leave to remain to their husbands who sought to join them.
Held: Article 8 did not impose a ‘general obligation on the part of a . .
UTIAC Paragraph 134 of the Immigration Rules provides for indefinite leave to be granted to a work permit holder who has spent ‘a continuous period of 5 years lawfully in the UK’ in that capacity. Unlike the . .
UTIAC 1) Article 32 of the Refugee Convention applies only to a refugee who has been granted leave to enter and to stay in the United Kingdom in accordance with para 334 of the Immigration Rules: Secretary of . .
UTIAC Paragraph 6C of the Immigration Rules specifies that an applicant for entry clearance whose arrival would cause an increase in the tax credits which his sponsor is already receiving will (in contrast to . .
UTIAC In order to have made false representations or submitted false documents so as to attract a mandatory refusal under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules, an applicant must have deliberately practised . .
UTIAC The requirement in paragraph 11 of Appendix C of the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended) is that the funds be ‘available’. It is unhelpful to try to paraphrase that.
Funds . .
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of alterations to the Immigration Rules and the 2003 Regulations. . .
The court was asked as to the impact of section 55 of the 2009 Act on the consideration by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of applications by children, made outside the scope of the Immigration Rules, for leave to remain in the United . .
UTIAC The requirement imposed by the Immigration Rules, Appendix A, Table 9, paragraph 2(a) on an applicant as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant relates to the status of the relevant institution at the time of . .
The court was asked whether the ban contained in paragraph 277 of the immigration rules on the entry for settlement of foreign spouses between the ages of 18 and 21 is a lawful way of dealing with the problem of forced marriages. . .
UTIAC The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pankina is not limited to the ‘three-month rule’ in relation to evidence of funds. Policy Guidance does not have the status of Immigration Rules for the . .
UTIAC 1. Consistent application of the Immigration Rules to promote the economic and social policy of the UK is a relevant factor in carrying out the balancing exercise under Article 8(2) but the weight attached . .
UKIAT The Immigration Rules make no provision for the admission of post-flight spouses of refugees with limited leave. The Rules should be changed. In the mean time it is most unlikely that it will be . .
UKIAT The expression ‘current . . leave to remain’ in para 245ZX(I) of the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 395 as amended must refer to an applicant’s/appellant’s substantive period of limited . .
‘There are two questions which I have to answer on this application for judicial review. First, are paragraphs 320(7A) and (7B) of the Immigration Rules unlawful so that the relevant decisions of the Entry Clearance Officer made under them cannot . .
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary refusing to treat his additional submissions as giving rise to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, HC 395. He further asserts there was a material . .
Claim to be granted humanitarian protection in accordance with paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules. . .
Claim by Mr K for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as he had made no fresh claim for asylum and no fresh human rights claim such as would bring paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules into play and . .
Application for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State not to treat the further submissions of the petitioner as a fresh claim for the purposes of rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. . .