Click the case name for better results:

Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008

The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing human rights grounds. The respondent had a policy that the applicant must return … Continue reading Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008

JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Oct 2006

The Tribunal had concluded in JM (Rule 62(7); human rights unarguable) Liberia * [2006] UKAIT 00009 that a human rights claim was not justiciable on a variation of leave appeal because in such a case the appellant’s removal was not imminent, and the case was not within section 84(1)(g) which conferred the relevant jurisdiction on … Continue reading JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Oct 2006

Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008

The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an order returning him to Sierra Leone would impinge on their right to family … Continue reading Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008

Aziz (NIAA 2002 S 104(4A): Abandonment : Pakistan): UTIAC 14 Feb 2020

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

MY (Refusal of Human Rights Claim : Pakistan): UTIAC 27 Feb 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

MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Jun 2010

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

AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Oct 2009

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

DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 26 Feb 2020

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

EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KC (South Africa) v Same: CA 26 Jun 2009

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

ST (Child Asylum Seekers) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 25 Jun 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

MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 Jan 2009

The court was asked whether under the 2002 Act it is possible to challenge by way of appeal to the AIT an immigration decision under section 82(2)(h) to remove an illegal entrant, where the ground of appeal is an allegation that removal directions for the proposed country of return could not lawfully be made pursuant … Continue reading MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 Jan 2009

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 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

Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 20 May 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

Acts

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

law index

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