UTIAC 1. Exclusion decisions are not be confused with exclusion orders.
2. It is settled law that the Secretary of State has the power to make an exclusion decision: see R (on the application of Naik) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 14 and there is nothing unlawful in such a decision being made after a claimant has made a voluntary departure from the UK.
3. There is no reason in principle why Zambrano principles (Zambrano v Office National de l’Emploi (ONEm) [2011] All ER (EC) 4) cannot have application in entry clearance cases: in both in-country and out-of-country cases the Member State must ensure that any ‘refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a citizen of the Union’: Dereci and Others (European citizenship) [2011] EUECJ C-256/11, 15 November 2011, para 74.
Stoery, Jordan UTJJ
[2013] UKUT 147 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .
Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
Cited – Naik, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant challenged the decision of the respondent to revoke his entry visa, saying ‘he was to be excluded ‘for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making statements that attempt to justify terrorist activity and fostering hatred’.’
Immigration
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.472148