Application for permission to appeal against a determination of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal . .
‘This appeal raises a short point on the proper interpretation of section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002’ Judges: Elias LJ Citations:  EWCA Civ 50,  INLR 11,  1 WLR 2766,  Imm AR 745 Links: Bailii Statutes: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Immigration … Continue reading MS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 16 Jan 2014
The claimant sought a declaration that the obligation on the respondent to continue to support the child of an asylum seeker when the parent had ceased to be entitled to support, continued despite the 2002 Act. Held: The statute was quite clear. The obligation to provide support for the child under the 1999 Act continued … Continue reading B, Regina (on the Application of) v The Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another: Admn 19 Sep 2005
ICJ The claim arose out of the adjudication in bankruptcy in Spain of Barcelona Traction, a company incorporated in Canada. Its object was to seek reparation for damage alleged by Belgium to have been sustained by Belgian nationals, shareholders in the company, as a result of acts said to be contrary to international law committed … Continue reading In re Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd (Belgium v Spain) (second phase): ICJ 5 Feb 1970
Extant Appeal: S94B Challenge: Forum – (1) Where an appellant’s appeal has been certified under section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the appellant has been removed from the United Kingdom pursuant to that certificate, the First-tier Tribunal is the forum for determining whether, in all the circumstances, the appeal can … Continue reading Watson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: UTIAC 5 Apr 2018
The appeal raises two issues: first, whether the application made by the first appellant was properly characterised as a human rights claim for the purposes of s.94(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and second whether the decision on the application was void or nullified on the grounds of illegality? Citations:  EWCA … Continue reading Joshi and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 May 2018
Refusal of certification of human rights claims by the Secretary of State under section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Judges: The Lord Burnett of Maldon Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Justice Underhill (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) And Lord Justice Lewis Citations:  EWCA Civ … Continue reading Yilmaz and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 10 Mar 2022
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
1. Following the amendment to s 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’), effective from 20 October 2014, a previous decision made by the Competent Authority within the National Referral Mechanism (made on the balance of probabilities) is not of primary relevance to the determination of an asylum appeal, despite … Continue reading ES (S82 Nia 2002, Negative NRM): UTIAC 6 Sep 2018
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
(i) While the two fold duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 are imposed on the Secretary of State, the onus of making representations and providing relevant evidence relating to a child’s best interests rests on the appropriate parental figure. (ii) A failure to discharge this onus may well … Continue reading Ahmed and Others (Deprivation of Citizenship) (Pakistan): UTIAC 10 Feb 2017
1. The strength or otherwise of an underlying Article 8 case is relevant to a decision by the respondent whether to certify a case under s.94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in that it may disclose a case without a specific case being advanced by the applicant as to why temporary separation … Continue reading JT, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (S94B Niaa 2002 Certification) (IJR): UTIAC 28 Aug 2015
The issue in this case concerns the true meaning and ambit of the additional right of appeal specific to asylum claims which was given by section 83 of the 2002 Act. Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson  UKSC 33 Bailii, Bailii Summary Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act … Continue reading MS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 22 Jun 2016
UTIAC (i) Section 117B (6) is a reflection of the distinction which Parliament has chosen to make between persons who are, and who are not, liable to deportation. In any case where the conditions enshrined in section 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are satisfied, the section 117B(6) public interest prevails over … Continue reading Treebhawon and Others (Section 117B): UTIAC 19 Nov 2015
UTIAC (1) Lord Neuberger’s judgment in R (ZA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 926 is an authoritative pronouncement on the scope of the Supreme Court’s judgments in R (BA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 7. (2) Parliament’s actions in amending paragraph 353 … Continue reading Hussein, Regina (on The Application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Para 353: Present Scope and Effect)(IJR): UTIAC 8 Aug 2016
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been accepted as a ‘fresh claim’ by the Secretary of State under … Continue reading BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: SC 26 Nov 2009
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) Sections 117A and 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are not confined to an appeal under section 84(1)(c). They apply also to appeals brought under section 84(1)(a) and (g). (ii) Section 117B(4) and (5) of the 2002 Act, which instruct Judges to attribute ‘little weight’ to the considerations specified therein, … Continue reading Deelah and Others (Section 117B – Ambit): UTIAC 30 Jul 2015
UTIAC In J v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 705 (Admin), Stadlen J set out a four stage process that must be undertaken by the Secretary of State before she could certify a claim under s.96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The merits of any new matter raised … Continue reading Vassell, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (S96 Niaa 2002, Test; Merits) (IJR): UTIAC 3 Jun 2015
UTIAC Where a provision of the Rules (such as that in para 245DD(k)) provides that points will not be awarded if the decision-maker is not satisfied as to another (non-points-scoring) aspect of the Rule, the non-points-scoring aspect and the requirement for points are inextricably linked. As a result, the prohibition on new evidence in s … Continue reading Ahmed and Another (PBS: Admissible Evidence): UTIAC 21 Jul 2014
The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The treaty was intended to encourage bilateral trading … Continue reading Occidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador: CA 9 Sep 2005
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)  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
The applicants had arrived in the UK as minors fleeing Afghanistan. They now challenged grant of a discretionary leave to remain limited to expire withiin one year. Maurice Kay VP, Beatson, Briggs LJJ  EWCA Civ 1609,  WLR(D) 483,  INLR 542,  1 WLR 2095,  2 CMLR 31 Bailii, WLRD Nationality, Immigration … Continue reading TN (Afghanistan) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 12 Dec 2013
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
UTIAC 1. Appeals can be brought under section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (so called ‘upgrade’ appeals’) only on the grounds that removing the appellant from the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention (see section 84(3)) or that the appellant is entitled to humanitarian protection … Continue reading ST (Child Asylum Seekers) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 25 Jun 2013
The claimants applications had been decided under a fast track procedure since ruled ultra vires. Held: The decisions remained valid. Sharp, Peter Jackson, Singh LJJ  EWCA Civ 2838,  WLR(D) 787 Bailii, WLRD Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 106 England and Wales Immigration Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.631420
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. The AIT had found that it would not be unreasonable for them to … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others: HL 14 Nov 2007
Anonymised Party to Proceedings The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported exercise) of a common law power. The court also gave directions … Continue reading A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland): SC 8 May 2014
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. A decision to certify a person’s (P’s) removal under regulation 24AA of the European Economic Area Regulations 2006 operates as a temporary measure that can be applied only for so long as there is a statutory appeal which could be brought in time or which is pending. 2. Regulation 24AA is a discretionary … Continue reading Masalskas, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Regulations 24Aa and 29Aa EEA Regs) (IJR): UTIAC 26 Nov 2015
The appellant, a Palestinian, challenged the involvement of Lady Cosgrove as a judge in her case, saying that Lady Cosgrove’s involvement as a jew in pro-Jewish lobby organisations meant that there was an appearance of bias. The applicant had sought asylum, saying that she had fled Palestine after taking legal action against the president of … Continue reading Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: HL 22 Oct 2008
The two applicants had been detained by the armed forces in Iraq suspected of murder. They sought release before being transferred to the civilian authorities for trial saying that the trials would not be fair. The respondent denied that the applicants were within the jurisdiction of the court for this purpose, but merely being held … Continue reading Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: Admn 19 Dec 2008
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2. Held: The SSD’s appeal succeeded. ‘jurisdiction’ within the meaning of Article … Continue reading Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening): SC 30 Jun 2010
The appellants complained that the provision which required that on hearing an appeal against refusal of an entry clearance the officer or tribunal could only consider the circumstances applying at the date of the application, infringed his human rights. They sought to come here to live with a cousin. Held: The appeals failed. The procedure … Continue reading AS (Somalia) and Another v Secretary Of State for the Home Department: HL 17 Jun 2009
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum. Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for ill-treatment to show that the country would not provide them with adequate protection against non-state agents. It was … Continue reading Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v: HL 26 May 2005
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 . .
The Court considered linked issues as to the treatment of ‘qualifying children’ and their parents, under the statutory regime contained in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Three appellants (KO, IT and NS) argued that when . .
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 . .
Leave to remain – Application – Reasonableness of expecting child applicant to leave United Kingdom – Proper approach to applying reasonableness test . .
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. . .
1. A court or tribunal retains jurisdiction to deal with ‘open justice’ aspects arising from a case, after that case has concluded before it.
2. A higher court or tribunal may impose an anonymity order that has effect in respect of the . .
1) Under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, as amended, a Female Genital Mutilation Prevention Order (‘FGMPO’) may be issued by a Family Court to protect against a domestic or extraterritorial threat of FGM.
2) Where a person (‘P’) . .
Where a provision of the Rules (such as that in para 245DD(k)) provides that points will not be awarded if the decision-maker is not satisfied as to another (non-points-scoring) aspect of the Rule, the non-points-scoring aspect and the requirement . .
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
(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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
(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, . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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
The court considered its freedom to depart from an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
(A) There is nothing in MS (Palestinian Territories)  UKSC 25 that overrules the judgments in MA (Ethiopia)  EWCA Civ 289. Where a claim to recognition as a refugee depends on whether a . .
The claimants had entered England unlawfully, fleeing from China, then moved to Ireland and then back to England with their new born child, and claimed asylum. The court considered how the position of their child affected the parents.
Held: To . .
What powers do local authorities now have to provide accommodation for an adult who, not being an asylum-seeker, is unlawfully present in the United Kingdom and who is caring for a child? . .
Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint.
Held: . .
The court was asked as to the entitlement of the claimants to appeal against the rejection of their asylum claims under section 83. . .
TIAC (i) In London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim Case C-310/08 and Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth Case C-480/08 the European Court of Justice ECJ confirmed the principle established in the Baumbast Case . .
Both claimants applied to the defendant Secretary of State to have deportation orders made against them revoked on asylum or human rights grounds. These applications were rejected. Both had previously made asylum or human rights claims that were the . .
(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 . .
(1) In the light of Kiarie and Byndloss v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 42, the First-tier Tribunal should adopt a step-by-step approach, in order to determine whether an appeal certified under section 94B of the . .
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 . .
When considering an appeal against the refusal of entry clearance, the court must consider only the circumstances as applied at the date of the refusal. . .
IAT JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department  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 . .
The asylum applicant sought judicial review of interlocutory decisions of an immigration judge. The defendant said that there was a statutory procedure and that therefore that had to be followed rather than judicial review.
Held: The . .
IAT (i) failed Turkish asylum-seekers who seek to rely on ‘standstill’ provisions under the Ankara Agreement of 1963 by virtue of engaging in business or being self-employed in the UK (even assuming they have . .
(1) Section 117A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 requires the Upper Tribunal, in a judicial review involving Article 8(2) ECHR, to have regard to the considerations mentioned in section 117B and, where relevant, section 117C, . .
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
(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 . .
The court gave guidance on the powers available to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal as constituted under the 2002 Act. The powers were broadly those of the former Immigration Appeal tribunal. The Tribunal had power to admit new evidence after a . .
This case is reported for what we say about the exercise of the power to make directions to give effect to a determination, pursuant to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and pursuant to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ( as amended . .
‘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 . .
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
The Home Secretary appealed a ruling that his implementation of section 55 was unlawful, having been said to be incompatible with human rights law.
Held: The way in which the section had been operated, by denying consideration and all benefits . .
The applicant sought admission to the UK. In the past he had made utterances which were capable of being racist. He claimed to have recanted, and had given undertakings as to his behaviour. At first instance it was held that the Home Secretary had . .
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
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  UKSC 42, the first question to be answered by the First-tier Tribunal in an appeal involving a claim that has been certified . .
AIT Section 88(2)(d) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 restricts the grounds of appeal to those mentioned in s 88(4) if and only if the reason cited has some relationship to the application. . .
Judicial review raises a short question of construction of section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, ‘was the claimant’s claim, made in the course of an immigration appeal against the defendant’s refusal to grant her leave . .
AIT The presumptions in s.72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that in the circumstances specified a person has been convicted by a final judgment of a ‘particularly serious crime’ for the . .
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 . .
(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, . .
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) . .
(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 . .
(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 . .
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 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. . .
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 . .