The several applicants challenged the implementation of the section, which required an asylum seeker to make his application at the very first opportunity on arriving in the UK, and denied all benefit and support to those who did not do so. A form was completed by the officer, and followed strictly. They complained that the … Continue reading Regina (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (D) v Same; Regina (J) v Same etc: Admn 19 Feb 2003
The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading? Held: No simple test could be laid down, and each case is to be considered individually. The appeal court, … Continue reading Regina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar: CA 23 Sep 2003
The claimant had sought asylum on the day after arrival, and had therefore been refused any assistance beyond the provision of a list of charities who might assist. His lawyers were unable to secure either shelter or maintenance, and he had been left to sleep rough outside a police station. Held: The treatment amounted to … Continue reading Regina (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 4 Feb 2004
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 to any asylum applicant who did not claim asylum immediately upon entry, was unfair. There … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 18 Mar 2003
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day following their arrival. Held: The appeal by the Secretary of State … Continue reading Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same: HL 3 Nov 2005
The appellant brought in policies which denied to asylum claimants who had failed to declare their status immediately upon entry, any shelter or support or the right to work. They were to be left to starve on the streets if they so wished. He appealed a finding that his behaviour amounted to the equivalent of … Continue reading The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Limbuela, Tesema, Adam: CA 21 May 2004
The court asked whether the evidence showed that the threshold of severity had been reached to turn the treatment of the applicant into an infringement of his human right not to suffer inhuman or degrading treatment. Having entered the UK with a . .
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: Rules granting the State immunities, did not infringe the applicants’ right to … Continue reading McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Nov 2001
Judges: Anthony Edwards-Stuart QC Citations: [2008] EWHC 2955 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Children, Immigration, Human Rights Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.278333
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 received an appealable immigration decision) do not have an in-country right of appeal under the legislative framework in place on 1 … Continue reading SS and others (Ankara Agreement, No In-Country Right of Appeal) Turkey: IAT 29 Sep 2006
Appeals against the decision of the Upper Tribunal which remade the decision of the First Tier Tribunal and dismissed TB’s appeal from the decision of the Respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department which refused his human rights claim and maintained the decision to deport him. Citations: [2019] EWCA Civ 551 Links: Bailii … Continue reading Binbuga (Turkey) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 Apr 2019
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing assistance pending decision on her removal. The authority refused assistance on the basis that she … Continue reading K v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 31 Jul 2003
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant argued that UN resolution 1546 requiring it to maintain order in Iraq displaced the … Continue reading Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: Admn 12 Aug 2005
Judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to certify the petitioner’s asylum and human rights claims as clearly unfounded in terms of section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Citations: [2017] ScotCS CSOH – 3 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: Scotland Immigration Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Kadir, Re Judicial Review: SCS 18 Jan 2017
Appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal holding that a decision of the respondent refusing the appellant leave to remain in the United Kingdom was not an immigration decision within the meaning of section 82(2)(d) of the 2002 Act, leaving the appellant with no right of appeal against the first decision. Judges: Lord Justice … Continue reading Musico v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Oct 2020
(i) The power conferred on the Upper Tribunal, exercisable upon remittal to the First-tier Tribunal, by section 12(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to give directions is distinct from the power conferred by section 12(3)(b) to give procedural directions. (ii) Directions under section 12(b)(i) encompass matters such as guidance on the law … Continue reading ONM (Remittal To UKFTT With Directions): UTIAC 17 Aug 2015
(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 claimants challenged the rules disallowing their appeal against a decision for their expulsion as unconducive to the public good, unless made ‘out of country’, saying that this infringed their human rights to private and family life. Held: The appeals succeeded. Each had served terms of imprisonment for drugs related offences. Richards, Elias, McCombee LJJ … Continue reading Kiarie, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 13 Oct 2015
UTIAC The Immigration Rules, when applied in the context of the deportation of a foreign criminal, are a complete code. Where an assessment is required to be made as to whether a person meets the requirements of para 399 of the Immigration Rules, as that comprises an assessment of that person’s claim under article 8 … Continue reading KMO (Section 117 – Unduly Harsh): UTIAC 25 Sep 2015
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
1. For courts and tribunals, the coming into force of Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (ss.117A-D) has not altered the need for a two-stage approach to Article 8 claims. 2. Ordinarily a court or tribunal will, as a first stage, consider an appellant’s Article 8 claim by reference to the … Continue reading Bossade (Ss117A-D-Interrelationship With Rules): UTIAC 16 Jul 2015
(i) The public interest in firm immigration control is not diluted by the consideration that a person pursuing a claim under Article 8 ECHR has at no time been a financial burden on the state or is self-sufficient or is likely to remain so indefinitely. The significance of these factors is that where they are … Continue reading Forman (SS 117A-C Considerations): UTIAC 19 Jun 2015
UTIAC In J v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 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 (1) The statutory duty to consider the matters set out in s 117B of the 2002 Act is satisfied if the Tribunal’s decision shows that it has had regard to such parts of it as are relevant. (2) An appellant can obtain no positive right to a grant of leave to remain from either … Continue reading AM (S117B): UTIAC 17 Apr 2015
The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he would be entitled to assistance from the respondent. … Continue reading Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council: Admn 14 Jul 2003
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own account in respect of injuries sustained during the raid. The claimants … Continue reading Bankovic v Belgium: ECHR 12 Dec 2001
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 appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. Held: The appeal failed. The decision was to be taken under the Rules applying at … Continue reading Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 20 May 2009
Ms R had overstayed, but resisted deportation claiming a long term relationship with a man for who she cared. Her leave was continued 11 times. A Seventh Day Adventist, the care she provided was as a friend. Indefinite leave to remain was refused . .
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that it had been an abuse of process and unlawful for the Secretary of State to have refused to grant to the Respondent refugee status and 5 years’ leave to remain in this country on the ground that he . .
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 . .
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
