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

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

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

Appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge whereby she allowed the appeal of Mrs Naseem Akhtar against the decision of the respondent. Mrs Akhtar did not appear. The claimant sought permission to enter the United Kingdom 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

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

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

(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

(1) The fact that an appeal was decided pursuant to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005 does not mean that the weight to be attached to the decision necessarily falls to be materially reduced, when applying the Guidelines in Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKAIT 702. … Continue reading Regina (on The Application of MW) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Fast Track Appeal: Devaseelan Guidelines): UTIAC 16 Dec 2019

UTIAC 1 No party to proceedings before the Upper Tribunal is entitled to withdraw its case without permission under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. A case may be withdrawn with permission but a case is not withdrawn until the Tribunal has notified the parties in writing that permission to withdraw … Continue reading EG and NG (UT Rule 17: Withdrawal; Rule 24: Scope) Ethiopia: UTIAC 8 Feb 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

UTIAC The significance of Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40 is to make it plain that, in appeals where the only matter weighing on the respondent’s side of an Article 8 proportionality balance is the public policy of requiring an application to be made under the immigration rules from abroad, that legitimate objective will usually … Continue reading Hayat (Nature of Chikwamba Principle) Pakistan: UTIAC 22 Nov 2011

UTIAC Where permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been granted, but in circumstances where the application is out of time, an explanation is provided, but that explanation is not considered by the judge granting permission, in the light of AK (Tribunal appeal – out of time) Bulgaria [2004] UKIAT 00201 (starred) and the … Continue reading Boktor and Wanis (Late Application for Permission) Egypt: UTIAC 22 Nov 2011

UTIAC (Re-Using Same Case: New Rules) India (1) In the fast-changing world of the points-based system, it is important (a) to ascertain the precise basis on which an application has been refused; (b) to identify the relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules; and (c) to check the relevant commencement provisions.(2) Thus, where an applicant had … Continue reading Bhanushali v Secretary of State for the Home Department: UTIAC 5 Oct 2011

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

UTIAC Proof of the requisite funds for ‘Maintenance’ under the Points Based System is retrospective. For example, a student must show that the funds were available for a continuous period of 28 days before the application for entry clearance or leave to remain was made. If, throughout that period, an overdraft facility could have been … Continue reading Rana (PBS: Appendix C – Overdraft Facility) India: UTIAC 11 May 2011

UTIAC Where an application for entry clearance or leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is made before 3 March 2010 and has not been determined before that date, it will be decided in accordance with the Immigration Rules in force on 2 March 2010, rather than the Statement of Changes in Immigration … Continue reading Singini (Para 319C, Switching To Dependant Category) Malawi: UTIAC 25 May 2011

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 required by paragraph 11 of Appendix C can take the form of a credit card limit. Judges: Stacey J, … Continue reading Ejifugha (Tier 4 – Funds – Credit) Nigeria: UTIAC 9 May 2011

UTIAC (1) Immigration Judges have jurisdiction to determine whether decisions on variation of leave applications are in accordance with the law, where issues of fairness arise.(2) Where a sponsor licence has been revoked by the Secretary of state during an application for variation of leave and the applicant is both unaware of the revocation and … Continue reading Patel (Revocation of Sponsor Licence – Fairness) India: UTIAC 6 Jun 2011

UTIAC LAW(A) There is nothing in MS (Palestinian Territories) [2010] UKSC 25 that overrules the judgments in MA (Ethiopia) [2009] EWCA Civ 289. Where a claim to recognition as a refugee depends on whether a person is being arbitrarily denied the right of return to a country as one of its nationals, that issue must … Continue reading ST (Ethnic Eritrean – Nationality – Return) Ethiopia CG: UTIAC 1 Jul 2011

(i) In section 117B(1)-(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 parliament has made no distinction between adult and child immigrants. (ii) The factors set out at section 117B(1)-(5) apply to all, regardless of age. They are not however an exhaustive list, and all other relevant factors must also be weighed in the balance. … Continue reading Miah (Section 117B NIAA 2002 – Children): UTIAC 23 Nov 2015

Judges: Stanley Burnton, Patten, Black LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 811 Links: Bailii Statutes: Immigration Rules 395C Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.441821

UTIAC Complaint was made by an allegation that a judge of the First-tier Tribunal had too readily allowed a witness to give evidence by telephone. Held: The decision whether to allow evidence to be given by electronic means is a judicial one, requiring consideration of the need to do so, the arrangements at the distant … Continue reading Nare (Evidence By Electronic Means) Zimbabwe: UTIAC 22 Nov 2011

The requirement to prove the existence of ‘contracts’ in paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A to the immigration rules does not itself require the contracts in question to be contained in documents. There is, however, a need for such contracts to be evidenced in documentary form. Citations: [2014] UKUT 216 (IAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Shebl (Entrepreneur: Proof of Contracts): UTIAC 8 May 2014

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

IAT Effect of deletion of paragraph 252 (leave to enter as spouse or child of special voucher holder) of Immigration Rules on applications made before date of deletion but not decided until after date of deletion Citations: [2005] UKAIT 00141 Links: Bailii Immigration Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231355

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to give him permission to stay in the United Kingdom. As a Turkish national he had absconded after being ordered to be removed, and had since gone into business here. Held: The effect of the protocol was to prevent a member state bringing in … Continue reading Temiz, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 13 Oct 2006

The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal after it has refused leave to appeal. Citations: Gazette 12-Apr-1995, Times 01-Mar-1995 Statutes: Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 (1984 No 2041) 14(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.80284

(i) A legal requirement for conscription and a mechanism for the prosecution or punishment of a person refusing to undertake military service is not sufficient to entitle that person to refugee protection if there is no real risk that the person will be subjected to prosecution or punishment. (ii) A person will only be entitled … Continue reading PK (Draft Evader; Punishment; Minimum Severity): UTIAC 5 May 2018

(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

1. Where a visit visa application is refused because the Visa Officer is not satisfied of the appellant’s intentions as a result of only limited documents being produced and translated; and the respondent breaches Procedure Rules by failing to send documentation to the Tribunal, directions can be given indicating that unless the respondent complies with … Continue reading Cvetkovs (Visa – No File Produced – Directions) Latvia: UTIAC 6 Jun 2011

1. The correct approach to cessation in Article 1(C) of the Refugee Convent ion, Article 11 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83 and paragraph 339A of the Immigration Rules can be summarised as follows: (i) There is a requirement of symmetry between the grant and cessation of refugee status because the cessation decision is the mirror … Continue reading PS (Cessation Principles) Zimbabwe: UTIAC 21 Sep 2021

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

UTIAC The effect of paragraph 14 of Appendix J to the Immigration Rules is that other than where an applicant has contracted weekly hours or is paid an hourly rate, the appropriate salary for the purposes of paragraph 79 of Appendix A is an applicant’s gross annual salary paid by the sponsor employer, subject to … Continue reading Tukhas (Para 245Hd(F): ‘Appropriate Salary’) Russia: UTIAC 17 Mar 2016

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 (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