Category: Immigration

Bardiqi, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 14 Jul 2003

Application for judicial review of decisions by the Secretary of State certifying claims made on behalf of the claimant as manifestly unfounded in accordance with section 72(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1788 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 72(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.185628

Sandhu, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 16 Sep 2003

The claimant challenged the refusal of a right to appeal against the decision refusing hs asylum appeal. He had failed to attend two hearings. The respondent gave his certificate under section 73 that in his opinion the only purpose of the appeal was to delay removal.
Held: The correct approach was to to treat it as providing that ‘the claimant had no other legitimate purpose at this stage’ The claimant had already disclosed and had heard each point, it was possible for the respondent’s certificate to be correct. However the respondent had not given reasons for his decision, and it could not be concluded that delay was the only possible reason for the application.

Judges:

Mr George Bartlett QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2152 (Admin), Times 26-Sep-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 73(8), European Convention on Human Right 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Vemenac) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Jul-2002
The applicant was a Serb from Croatia whose application for asylum was refused. On appeal to an adjudicator he also raised human rights issues but his appeal was dismissed. He later applied again for leave to remain on the basis of his relationship . .
Cited – Balamurali, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-May-2003
. .
Cited – Alia, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Jul-2003
. .
Appealed to – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.186405

Secretary of State for Home Department v Ravichandran: CA 6 Jun 1997

Application for leave to appeal granted.
Held: This was a case where the relationship of the Tribunal to the Special Adjudicator can and should be considered. ‘I have indicated some of the difficulties which may arise. There is no doubt that the Tribunal have power to make findings of fact and to reverse findings of fact of a Special Adjudicator, but the manner in which they may do so and the type of case in which they may do so is much in issue.’

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1812

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Assah 1994
The adjudicator had accepted at least a substantial part of the appellant’s evidence, whereas the IAT, without the benefit of hearing it, had concluded that none of the accounts which he had put forward in relation to past material events was true. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Fernandez: Fernandez v Government of Singapore HL 1971
Test for police protection need
The court considered the degree of risk to an individual which should give rise to a duty on the police to protect him under article 2.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords, bearing in mind the relative gravity of the consequences of the court’s . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran HL 16-Dec-1987
The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the . .
See Also – Regina v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Rajendrakumar CA 11-Oct-1995
The three Tamil applicants had left the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers and gone to live in Colombo. It was asserted that in Colombo they had a well-founded fear of persecution because they were young male Tamils and were therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.142208

Mahabir and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 6 May 2021

Attempts by a Windrush victim, to be reunited with her husband and children by having them enter the United Kingdom from Trinidad and Tobago where they currently reside.

Judges:

Mr Tim Smith (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1177 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.662405

VA168852013 and VA168912013: AIT 20 Nov 2014

Appeals against the decision of the entry clearance officer to refuse to entry clearance to come to the UK as family visitors was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal. The entry clearance officer was not satisfied that the family income was as claimed. There was insufficient evidence of rental income or earnings from land. Accordingly, the applications were refused.

Citations:

[2014] UKAITUR VA168852013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.544161

OA215782012: AIT 15 Oct 2014

The appellant is the Entry Clearance Officer in Lagos, the respondent is a citizen of Nigeria. The Entry Clearance Officer has been given permission to appeal the determination of First-Tier Tribunal who allowed her appeal on Article 8 human rights grounds against the Entry Clearance Officer’s decision to refuse to grant her entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom as the spouse of her husband and sponsor, a naturalised British citizen.

Judges:

Moulden UTJ

Citations:

[2014] UKAITUR OA215782012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.542730