Citations: [2020] EWCA Civ 717 Links: Bailii Statutes: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 117D(2)(c)(ii) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651198

(1) A person (C) in the United Kingdom who makes a human rights claim is asserting that C (or someone connected with C) has, for whatever reason, a right recognised by the ECHR, which is of such a kind that removing C from, or requiring C to leave, would be a violation of that right. … Continue reading Mujahid, Regina (on The Application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and The Secretary of State for The Home Department (Refusal of Human Rights Claim): UTIAC 25 Feb 2020

The applicant had sought judicial review, but before it was heard, and by a listing error, the statutory review went ahead. She now sought leave to continue the judicial review notwithstanding the final decision against her. Held: The error if uncorrected would cause injustice. The court had power to hear the application for judicial review … Continue reading AM (Cameroon), Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and Another: CA 20 Feb 2008

Where: (a) an individual who is in the United Kingdom makes an application for indefinite leave to remain which is to be treated as a human rights claim within the meaning of s. 113 of the 2002; and (b) the Secretary of State decides not to grant indefinite leave to remain but grants the individual … Continue reading Mujahid, Regina (on The Application of) v First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): CA 31 Mar 2021

UTIAC British citizen born in Northern Ireland prior to 2001 was an Irish national from birth; when he terminated his activity as a worker as a result of permanent incapacity to work he acquired a permanent right of residence under reg 15(1)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006; there was no requirement for … Continue reading MAH (Dual Nationality – Permanent Residence) Canada: UTIAC 7 Dec 2010

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

UTIAC 1. Law(a) For the purposes of determining whether a person is ‘of’ or ‘has’ a nationality within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, it is convenient to distinguish between cases where a person (i) is (already) of that nationality; (ii) is not of that nationality but is entitled to acquire it; … Continue reading KK and Others (Nationality: North Korea) Korea CG: UTIAC 7 Mar 2011

IAT In any case of disputed nationality the first question to be considered should be: ‘Is the person de jure a national of the country concerned?’. This question is to be answered by examining whether the person fulfils the nationality law requirements of his or her country. Matters such the text of nationality laws, expert … Continue reading MA (Disputed Nationality) Ethiopia: IAT 17 Apr 2008

Citations: [2005] UKIAT 00059 Links: Bailii Immigration Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223336

‘This is an appeal from the determination of Mr Mitchell sitting on 13 October 2003. The claimant, whose appeal this is, claims to be a citizen of Burma. He says that he is a Rohingya Muslim of Bengali ethnicity from the far west of Burma. The Adjudicator came to the conclusion that he was not … Continue reading AH (Disputed Nationality, Risk on Return, Rohingya Muslim) Burma: IAT 27 Apr 2004

Appeal from refusal of British nationality applications. Judges: Swift J Citations: [2020] EWHC 2867 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 2D Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.655212

The Belfast (or Good Friday) Agreement did not amend the law of British citizenship, as contained in the British Nationality Act 1981 Citations: [2019] UKUT 355 (IAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.644460

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

UTIAC (i) An appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 requires there to be an immigration decision, as there defined. Where no immigration decision has been made, the First-tier Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. (ii) Judges considering an appeal (or applications for permission to appeal) should ensure … Continue reading Singh (No Immigration Decision- Jurisdiction) India: UTIAC 6 Sep 2013

Leave to remain – Application – Reasonableness of expecting child applicant to leave United Kingdom – Proper approach to applying reasonableness test . .

1. When deciding whether leave was obtained by deception for the purpose of revocation of Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under section 76(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 the respondent’s policy, Revocation of Indefinite . .

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 . .

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s. 94B: Access to lawyers
(1) In the light of Kiarie and Byndloss [2017] UKSC 42, the first question to be answered by the First-tier Tribunal in an appeal involving a claim that has been certified . .

Where a person brings an appeal under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and is then given leave to remain in the United Kingdom, the effect of section 104(4A) is to cause the appeal to be treated as abandoned (subject to section 104(4B)), whether or not the appeal was pending on … Continue reading Aziz (NIAA 2002 S 104(4A): Abandonment : Pakistan): UTIAC 14 Feb 2020

(1) Section 104(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which an appeal under section 82(1) is not finally determined. (2) Although section 104(2) is describing situations in which an appeal is not to be regarded as finally determined, the corollary is that, where none of … Continue reading Niaz (Niaa 2002 S 104: Pending Appeal) Pakistan: UTIAC 25 Nov 2019

Application for judicial review of the Respondent’s decision dated 2 June 2014 to refuse the applicant’s claim for asylum and to certify the claim under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and following removal directions set on 11 June 2014 for the applicant’s removal. Citations: [2015] UKUT 76 (IAC) Links: Bailii … Continue reading Odedra, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Ijr): UTIAC 30 Jan 2015

1. British citizenship is a relevant factor when assessing the best interests of the child. 2. British citizenship includes the opportunities for children to live in the UK, receive free education, have full access to healthcare and welfare provision and participate in the life of their local community as they grow up. 3. There is … Continue reading SD (British Citizen Children – Entry Clearance) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 23 Jan 2020

(1) The Secretary of State’s assessment of whether a claim by C constitutes a human rights claim, as defined by section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, is not legally determinative. The Secretary of State’s Guidance is, however, broadly compatible with what the High Court in R (Alighanbari) v Secretary of State … Continue reading MY (Refusal of Human Rights Claim : Pakistan): UTIAC 27 Feb 2020

To bring a case within Exception 2 in s.117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the ‘unduly harsh’ test will not be satisfied, in a case where a child has two parents, by either or both of the following, without more: (i) evidence of the particular importance of one parent in the lives … Continue reading Imran (Section 117C, Children, Unduly Harsh : Pakistan): UTIAC 11 Feb 2020

i. Under the 2000 and 2006 EEA Regulations there was provision for appeals brought under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to be treated as abandoned where an appellant was issued with documentation confirming a right to reside in the United Kingdom under EU law. Following the changes to the 2002 … Continue reading Ammari (EEA Appeals – Abandonment) Tunisia: UTIAC 2 Mar 2020

(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

(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

A. Historic injustice (1) For the future, the expression ‘historic injustice’, as used in the immigration context, should be reserved for cases such as those concerning certain British Overseas citizens or families of Gurkha ex-servicemen, which involve a belated recognition by the United Kingdom government that a particular class of persons was wrongly treated, in … Continue reading Patel (Historic Injustice; NIAA Part 5A) India: UTIAC 25 Nov 2020

UTIAC (1) The Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003 do not apply to a decision under the Immigration Act 1971, which is not an immigration decision within the meaning of section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.(2) There is no statutory instrument under the 1971 Act dealing with the means of giving notice for … Continue reading Syed (Curtailment of Leave – Notice) India: UTIAC 4 Mar 2013

UTIAC (1) An application for further leave to remain is to be treated as a continuing application, starting with the date when it was first submitted and ending on the date when it is decided: AQ (Pakistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 833.(2) It follows that an appellant is not precluded by section 85(5) of … Continue reading Khatel and Others (S85A; Effect of Continuing Application) Nepal: UTIAC 28 Jan 2013

UTIAC The right of appeal under s.83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 arises only if the relevant grant of leave postdates the asylum claim. Judges: Ockleton VP Citations: [2012] UKUT 365 (IAC) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466461

UTIAC In cases where s 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is invoked, it is important to see that the specific requirements of that section have been complied with. In particular, if the conviction was outside the United Kingdom, there must be either proof of the offence and sentence (s 72(3)), or … Continue reading HAA (S72: Overseas Conviction) Somalia: UTIAC 10 Oct 2012

UTIAC When a removal decision purportedly under s 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is made concurrently with a decision refusing further leave:(i) the s 47 decision is unlawful, but(ii) the decision refusing leave is a separate decision, that(iii) requires determination;(iv) s 85(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 brings … Continue reading Adamally and Jaferi (Section 47 Removal Decisions: Tribunal Procedures) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 15 Nov 2012

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 compliance with a different requirement of the PBS.(2) What is said in AQ (Pakistan) [2011] EWCA Civ 833 … Continue reading Ali (S120 – PBS) Pakistan: UTIAC 19 Oct 2012

The court considered the relationship between section 10 of the 1999 Act, and the appeal provisions in sections 82 and 92 of the 2002 Act and the extent to which, if any, a decision under section 10 of the 1999 Act could be challenged by judicial review rather than an out-of-country appeal. Held: The court … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Regina (on the Application of) Lim and Another: CA 25 Jul 2007

UTIAC 1. If a decision maker in the purported exercise of a discretion vested in him noted his function and what was required to be done when fulfilling it and then proceeded to reach a decision on that basis, the decision is a lawful one and the Tribunal cannot intervene in the absence of a … Continue reading Ukus (Discretion: When Reviewable) Nigeria: UTIAC 12 Sep 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

Application for leave to appeal against a decision of an Immigration Judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal under Section 103B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Judges: Lord Osborne Citations: [2009] ScotCS CSIH – 50 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: Scotland Immigration Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.347153

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 paragraph 320(2). He/she is not able to raise revocation in the grounds of appeal and rely on sectio … Continue reading Latif (S 120 – Revocation of Deportation Order) Pakistan: UTIAC 13 Mar 2012

UTIAC On its true construction, Article 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011 amends s85 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and introduces s85A in the 2002 Act only in relation to applications made to the Secretary of State on or after 23 May 2011. … Continue reading Shahzad (S 85A: Commencement) Pakistan: UTIAC 13 Mar 2012

UTIAC The effect of section 88A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (Commencement No.8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2008 is that a person refused entry clearance as a Tier 2 Migrant has a right of appeal limited to race discrimination and human rights … Continue reading Abisoye (Entry Clearance Appeal – Tier 2) Nigeria: UTIAC 13 Mar 2012

UTIAC An Immigration Judge is obliged to determine a ground of appeal brought under section 84(1)(g) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, even if the appellant raises for the first time in his grounds of appeal that he is a refugee. There is no obligation to adjourn any hearing before the First-tier Tribunal … Continue reading Haque (Adjournment for Asylum Interview) Bangladesh: UTIAC 16 Dec 2011

UTIAC The transitional provision in article 3 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011, concerning the commencement of s. 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Matters to be considered: new evidence: exceptions), adopts an unusual approach, in making the applicability of that section turn on … Continue reading Mumtaz (S85A Commencement Order : Adjournment Hearing) Pakistan: UTIAC 2 Dec 2011

The court considered whether it was safe to return the applicant to Italy, and said: ‘a system which will, if it operates as it usually does, provide the required standard protection for the asylum seeker will not be found to be deficient because of aberrations.’ Judges: Kenneth Parker J Citations: [2011] EWHC 3012 (Admin) Links: … Continue reading EM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Nov 2011

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’ arguments concerning the application of the transitional provisions regarding s. 85A, in article 3 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No. 7 … Continue reading Alam (S 85A; Commencement; Art.8) Bangladesh: UTIAC 19 Oct 2011

In each case, the respondent had refused an application for leave to remain, but had taken no prompt steps for their removal. The applicants now said that this rendered the original decision ‘not in accordance with the law’ under section 84(1)(e) of the 2002 Act. Judges: Arden, Jackson, Aikens LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1320, … Continue reading Sapkota and Another (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 Nov 2011

UTIAC There is a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under s.83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against a refusal of asylum triggered by a subsequent grant of more than one year’s leave to remain, even if there has been a previous unsuccessful asylum appeal.There is a right of appeal to … Continue reading Abiyat and Others (Rights of Appeal) Iran: UTIAC 20 Jul 2011

UTIAC 1. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) is required to apply of its own motion the statutory presumptions in s.72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to the effect that Art 33(2) of the Refugee Convention will not prevent refoulement of a refugee where the factual underpinning for the application of … Continue reading Mugwagwa (S.72 – Applying Statutory Presumptions) Zimbabwe: UTIAC 20 Jul 2011

UTIAC The phrase ‘liable to deportation’ in s 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 includes, in the case of a person within s 3(5)(a), the notion of the Secretary of State’s deeming deportation to be conducive to the public good. The provision of s 32(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007, that a person subject … Continue reading Ali (S.76 – ‘Liable To Deportation’) Pakistan: UTIAC 24 May 2011

Section 87(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 permits the Tribunal to give a direction for the purpose of giving effect to its decision and is a broader power than paragraph 21 (5) of Schedule 4 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 where the direction must be ‘necessary’ In an entry clearance … Continue reading SP (Allowed Appeal Directions) South Africa: UTIAC 17 Mar 2011

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

The appellant, a Gambian national sought review of two decisions of the Secretary of State as to first her decision to designate as safe, Gambia, in respect of men only, in the list of countries in section 94(4) of the 2002 Act, and second as to her related decision to certify the Appellant’s case as … Continue reading MD (Gambia), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Feb 2011

The applicants sought asylum, saying they had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment by Lithuanian Mafiosi. The claims were rejected as clearly unfounded, denying any right to an appeal. Held: The court could examine the basis upon which the Secretary had made his decision. The Home Secretary is entitled to certify if, after reviewing the material, … Continue reading Bagdanavicius, Bagdanaviciene v the Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Apr 2003

The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal which said that there was no immigration decision within section … Continue reading MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Jun 2010

(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

(1) Key features of ss.117A-117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 include the following: (a) judges are required statutorily to take into account a number of enumerated considerations. Sections 117A-117D are not, therefore, an a la carte menu of considerations that it is at the discretion of the judge to apply or not … Continue reading Dube (Ss117A-117D): UTIAC 24 Feb 2015

Judges: Silber J Citations: [2012] EWHC 3370 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.466303

Citations: [2009] EWHC 827 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 8 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.341534

IAT JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1402 has no impact on the scope of s. 83. As is clear from the relevant legislation and Immigration Rules, in an appeal under s.83 of the 2002 Act the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider non-asylum grounds; and, if an appeal … Continue reading AN and NN (S.83, Asylum Grounds Only) Albania: IAT 10 Dec 2007

IAT i If an appellant challenges a decision of the Secretary of State to revoke a refugee’s indefinite leave to remain because he has ceased to be a refugee for one of the reasons given in section 76(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 then the Secretary of State must prove that such … Continue reading RD (Cessation – Burden of Proof – Procedure) Algeria: IAT 26 Jun 2007

Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime. Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of notice of the decision to make a deportation order, the making of the deportation order, and the detention on foot … Continue reading DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 26 Feb 2020

The respondent had listed criminal offences committed by the applicants in support of his decision to have them removed and returned home. Held: The appeal was allowed. The list provided included offences which were not of the serious nature required for inclusion in such a list, and the respondent had not properly allowed for the … Continue reading EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KC (South Africa) v Same: CA 26 Jun 2009