(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

UTIAC (i) An application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom must comply with the requirements of paragraph A34 and all material provisions of paragraphs 34A – 34K of the Immigration Rules. (ii) Between June 2013 and August 2014, Tier 4 applicants had the choice of submitting their applications either on line or by … Continue reading Wasif, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Rule 34 – “Print and Send”) (IJR): UTIAC 30 Apr 2015

The Appellants, citizens of China, appeal, with permission, against the determination of an Adjudicator, dismissing their appeals against the decision of the Respondent Secretary of State refusing them indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Judges: Mr C M G Ockelton (Deputy President), Mr J Barnes (a Vice President), Mr L V Waumsley (a … Continue reading YL YL SN (Abandonment, Work-Permit Holders’ ILR) China: IAT 26 Apr 2004

The claimant having entered as a Tier 4 general student, filed an application for further leave to remain but his form was unsigned by him as required. Allan Gore QC HHJ [2014] EWHC 2586 (Admin) Bailii Immigration Rules 34(c) Immigration Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535654

UTIAC Decisions affecting children(1) The case law of the Upper Tribunal has identified the following principles to assist in the determination of appeals where children are affected by the appealed decisions:i) As a starting point it is in the best interests of children to be with both their parents and if both parents are being … Continue reading Azimi-Moayed and Others (Decisions Affecting Children; Onward Appeals) Iran: UTIAC 26 Apr 2013

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

An asylum-seeker held at a detention centre was not given a medical examination within 24 hours of her arrival at the centre as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. It was further claimed that transfers to Oakington Detention centre on making claim for asylum was unlawful. Held: ‘The power to detain … Continue reading D, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: Admn 22 May 2006

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 State for the Home Department v ST (Eritrea) [2010] EWCA Civ 643 applied. 2) As Article 1A(2) … Continue reading RR (Refugee-Safe Third Country) Syria: UTIAC 13 Nov 2010

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 ‘long residence rule’ at paras 276A-D, no definition of this requirement is given in HC 395, and there … Continue reading BD (Work Permit – Continous Period) Nigeria: UTIAC 21 Oct 2010

The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original determination which vitiated all findings of fact made … Continue reading Swash v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 26 Jul 2006

UTIAC The Secretary of State accepts that, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahad v. Entry Clearance Officer [2009] UKSC 16, applicants for entry clearance as working holiday makers under the now defunct paragraph 95 of the Immigration Rules, may rely upon third party support in order to show that they satisfy the … Continue reading KJ (Working Holiday Maker – Third Party Support) India: UTIAC 26 Jan 2011

IAT Prior to the Secretary of State’s decision and without notification to him, the Appellant changed her course of studies from that in respect of which the application had been made (paragraph 57(ii)(b) of HC 395 as amended) to one referable to paragraph 57(ii)(a )thereof. Held: (1) the nature of the change was such that … Continue reading TB (Student Application, Variation of Course, Effect) Jamaica: IAT 6 Apr 2006

The Ghanaian applicant asylum seeker had been a senior trade union official. He had lost his job and been ill-treated following political changes in Ghana. He had hidden in a remote village before seeking asylum in this country. The adjudicator acknowledged that he would be in jeopardy if he resumed his former activities, but concluded … Continue reading Jonah v Secretaty of State for the Home Department: 1985

Citations: [2019] EWCA Civ 456 Links: Bailii Statutes: Asylum and Immigration (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.634766

The grant by the Secretary of State of exceptional leave to remain in the UK, did not remove the right of an asylum seeker to appeal a rejection of his claim for asylum. The applicant had the right to have his status, and the UK’s compliance with international obligation determined. Held: The granting of special … Continue reading Regina (Saad and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Dec 2001

The most natural reading of a ministerial statement as to immigration rules is that (in the absence of any statement to the contrary) they will apply to the decisions made until different rules are promulgates, after which decisions will be made according to the new rules. Citations: [1979-80] Imm AR 9 Cited by: Cited – … Continue reading Regina v IAT ex parte Nathwani: QBD 1979

If a parent (‘P’) is unable to demonstrate he / she has been taking an active role in a child’s upbringing for the purposes of E-LTRPT.2.4 of the Immigration Rules, P may still be able to demonstrate a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child for the purposes of section 117B(6) of the … Continue reading SR (Subsisting Parental Relationship, S117B,): UTIAC 5 Sep 2018

(1) An appellate tribunal will usually be slow to overturn a judge’s decision on the basis of alleged errors in, or other problems with, interpretation at the hearing before that judge (Perera v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1002). Weight will be given to the judge’s own assessment of whether … Continue reading TS (Interpreters) Eritrea: UTIAC 4 Sep 2019

A person sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment made up of consecutive terms is not a ‘foreign criminal’ within the meaning of the deportation provisions of the Immigration Rules and is not therefore subject to paragraph 398 of those Rules. Citations: [2016] UKUT 56 (IAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: … Continue reading Olo and Others (Para 398 – ‘Foreign Criminal’): UTIAC 15 Jan 2016

(i) The effect of the amendment of the regime in paragraph 41/SD of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules via HC628, dated 06 September 2013, is that any application for entry clearance or leave made before 01 October 2013 is to be decided in accordance with the Rules in force on 30 September 2013. (ii) … Continue reading Arshad and Others (Tier 1 Applicants – Funding – ‘Availability’ : Pakistan): UTIAC 27 Jun 2016

i) A decision on an application under rule 134 of the Immigration Rules for indefinite leave to remain is a not a points-based decision to which s.85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended by s.19 of the UK Borders Act 2007 applies. ii) Post decision evidence of a back-dated wage increase … Continue reading Philipson (ILR – Not PBS: Evidence) India: UTIAC 6 Jan 2012

UTIAC The decision of the Court of Appeal in Patel [2015] EWCA Civ 1175 entails the view that the Upper Tribunal’s powers to set aside its own decisions are limited to those in rules 43 and 45-6 of the Upper Tribunal Rules. [2016] UKUT 336 (IAC) Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Patel and … Continue reading Jan (Upper Tribunal: Set-Aside Powers : Pakistan): UTIAC 7 Jul 2016

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 Home Department (‘SSHD’) of asylum applications. Held: The Court upheld the quashing of ‘Fast Track Rules’ which required asylum seekers, detained by the Home … Continue reading The Lord Chancellor v Detention Action: CA 29 Jul 2015

Appeal against an order dismissing the application of the appellant for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision refusing his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant. Held: The Court applied the Wednesbury criterion in holding that her finding of fact had not been unreasonable. … Continue reading Giri, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2015

UTIAC The first question to be addressed in an appeal against refusal to grant entry clearance as a visitor where only human rights grounds are available is whether article 8 of the ECHR is engaged at all. If it is not, which will not infrequently be the case, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to embark … Continue reading Entry Clearance Officer (Accra) v Adjei (Visit Visas – Article 8): UTIAC 6 May 2015

UTIAC (i) Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 empowers the Upper Tribunal to take such action as it considers just, which may include striking out a party’s case under rule 8, where there has been a failure to comply with a requirement of the rules, a practice direction or a tribunal … Continue reading SN, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Striking Out : Principles) (IJR): UTIAC 23 Apr 2015

‘ The applicant claims that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to grant him leave as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant under para 245ZX of the Immigration Rules (Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395 as amended) following a decision of the First-tier Tribunal notified on 16 July 2013 allowing the … Continue reading Akudike, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (IJR): UTIAC 2 Apr 2015

UTIAC (1) In terms of the approach that a tribunal should adopt towards decisions of the Secretary of State in which dishonesty or deception is alleged against an applicant for leave to remain, the starting point should be, as the Court of Appeal in Adedoyin (formerly AA (Nigeria) v SSHD) [2010] EWCA Civ 773 have … Continue reading Shen (Paper Appeals; Proving Dishonesty): UTIAC 20 May 2014

UTIAC In contrast to the requirement of para GEN 1.2(iv) of Appendix FM, a requirement (such as in paragraph 352AA of the Immigration Rules) that ‘parties have been living together in a relationship akin to either a marriage or a civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more’ does not require two years … Continue reading Fetle (Partners: Two Year Requirement): UTIAC 3 Jun 2014

UTIAC (1) The requirements listed in paragraph 41-SD(a)(i) of the Rules are to be construed reasonably and sensibly, in their full context. Approached in this way, the letters required from banks or other financial institutions are not designed to provide, and do not commit them to, any form of guarantee or assurance to any party. … Continue reading Durrani (Entrepreneurs: Bank Letters; Evidential Flexibility): UTIAC 13 Jun 2014

UTIAC (1) A jurisdictional decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, contained in a determination made after the appeal has passed the duty judge ‘screening’ stage, is appealable to the Upper Tribunal: Practice Statement 3.4; Abiyat and others (Rights of appeal) [2011] UKUT 314 (IAC). (2) Where the First-tier Tribunal has refused to … Continue reading Ved and Another (Appealable Decisions; Permission Applications; Basnet) (Tanzania): UTIAC 27 Mar 2014

(1) Article 17(2) of Regulation 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Dublin III’) confers a discretion on a Member State to examine an application for international protection ‘in order to bring together any family relations, on humanitarian grounds, based on family or cultural considerations’. Although the discretion is wide, it is not … Continue reading BAA and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Dublin III: Judicial Review; SOS’s Duties): UTIAC 23 Jun 2020

UTIAC (1) The respondent has produced a policy, which is intended to give effect to the principles of common law fairness identified in Patel (relocation of sponsor licence – fairness) [2011] UKUT 211 (IAC).(2) In essence, the policy provides that, in cases of potential discretionary refusal under paragraph 322 of the immigration rules, caseworkers should … Continue reading Kaur (Patel Fairness: Respondent’s Policy) India: UTIAC 18 Jul 2013

All four of the respondents to the Secretary of State’s appeals applied for leave to remain under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) provisions of the points-based system. In order to satisfy the criteria under that scheme in Part 6A of the Immigration Rules (HC 395, as amended) they required a United Kingdom recognised bachelor or … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Raju and Others: CA 25 Jun 2013

The Court was asked what rules apply to family members seeking entry to the United Kingdom, where the sponsor was given asylum and then obtained British citizenship. The ECO had said that the ordinary family members rules applied, where the claimants said that the joint relative rules applied, under which they would not be required … Continue reading ZN (Afghanistan) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi): SC 12 May 2010

In the light of the continuing inability of the Secretary of State to file acknowledgements of service in immigration judicial review proceedings within the time limit contained in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 and in the light of the general guidance given by the High Court in R (on the application of Singh … Continue reading Kumar and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Acknowledgement of Service; Tribunal Arrangements) (IJR): UTIAC 26 Feb 2014

UTIAC While HC 510 does contain provisions for general grounds of refusal, unlike more recent immigration rules, those general grounds do not specify refusal on current paragraph 320(7A) or 322(1A) grounds. [2012] UKUT 264 (IAC) Bailii England and Wales Immigration Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.463334

UTIAC A bank letter, which does not specify the postal address, landline telephone number and email address of the account holders is not thereby ‘in the wrong format’ for the purposes of paragraph 245AA of the immigration rules (documents not submitted with applications). The President, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey [2014] UKUT 297 (IAC) Bailii … Continue reading Akhter and Another (Paragraph 245Aa: Wrong Format): UTIAC 13 Jun 2014