The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
UTIAC An individual who is the subject of a deportation order must apply for revocation of the order before making an application for entry clearance if he/she is not to be subject to a mandatory refusal under . .
An appeal to the FTT covers not only any ground before the Secretary of State when she made the decision under appeal but also any grounds raised in response to a one-stop notice issued under section 120 of the 2002 Act, even if they had not been the subject of any decision by the Secretary … Continue reading AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Oct 2009
‘if an applicant for leave to remain raises a human rights ground for the first time after the refusal of his application on other grounds and in response to a request by the Secretary of State under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’), does the Secretary of State … Continue reading Shrestha and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 14 Dec 2018
Judges: Longmore, Davis LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley Citations:  EWCA Civ 1436,  INLR 456,  WLR(D) 318,  Imm AR 319,  1 WLR 1090 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 92(1) 92(4)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.465709
(1) A notice of removal window (Form RED.0004 (fresh)) is not an EEA decision for the purposes of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. The notice cannot accordingly be appealed under those Regulations. Even if it could constitute a decision, the notice of removal window will constitute an EEA decision only if it concerns … Continue reading Ahmad (Scope of Appeals) Pakistan: UTIAC 23 Jan 2018
Human rights appeals (1) In a human rights appeal under section 82(1)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, a finding that a person (P) satisfies the requirements of a particular immigration rule, so as to be entitled to leave to remain, means that (provided Article 8 of the ECHR is engaged), the Secretary … Continue reading OA and Others (Human Rights; ‘New Matter’; S120 : Nigeria): UTIAC 15 Jan 2019
If an appellant relies upon criteria that relate to a different category of the Immigration Rules to make good his Article 8 claim from that relied upon in his application for LTR on human rights grounds or in his s.120 statement such that a new judgment falls to be made as to whether or not … Continue reading AK and IK (S85 NIAA 2002 – New Matters : Turkey): UTIAC 1 Feb 2019
(1) The compelling reasons proviso in article 1C(5) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, as amended, applies in the UK only to refugees under article 1A(1) of the Convention. (2) Changes in a refugee’s country of origin affecting only part of the country may, in principle, lead to cessation of refugee status, albeit it is difficult … Continue reading AMA (Article 1C(5) – Proviso – Internal Relocation): UTIAC 12 Nov 2018
Section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
(1) Where, in the course of a human rights appeal under section 82(2)(b) of the 2002 Act, P responds to a notice served by the Secretary of State under section 120 of that Act by . .
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 . .
UTIAC (1) In a PBS case the exception set out in section 85A(3) and (4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 precludes a section 120 statement from being used in order to adduce evidence of . .
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed his appeal against a decision of an Immigration Judge in turn dismissing his appeal under section 82 of the 2002 Act against the decision of . .
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index