Category: Immigration

KH (Funding, RS Followed) Turkey: AIT 25 Jul 2007

AIT 1. It is now established that save in exceptional circumstances the grant of an order for reconsideration means that a funding order will be made if applicable: see RS (Funding-meaning of ‘significant prospect’) Iran [2005] UKAIT 00138 and reg 6(3) of the Community Legal Service (Asylum and Immigration Appeals) Regulations 2005.
2. Deciding whether there was a significant prospect that the appeal would be allowed upon reconsideration means considering what the position was ‘at the time when the appellant made the section 103A application’; it is not an exercise in hindsight based on how things appear later to an immigration judge in the light of further evidence and/or submissions.

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00068

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.277826

Ogilvy, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 5 Feb 2021

The claimant sought judicial review of the failure on the part of the Secretary of State to deal with three applications that have been made by the claimant: firstly, an application for statelessness, secondly, submissions made under rules 353A and 353B of the Immigration Rules; and, thirdly, an application for a Home Office travel document.

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 841 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661923

MR (Permission To Appeal: Tribunal’s Approach): UTIAC 19 Jan 2015

(1) A judge considering an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal must avoid granting permission on what, properly analysed, is no more than a simple quarrel with the First-tier Tribunal judge’s assessment of the evidence.
(2) When granting permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, it is unsatisfactory merely to state that the applicant’s grounds are arguable.
(3) The requirement, emphasised in Nixon (permission to appeal: grounds) [2014] UKUT 368 (IAC), to engage with each and every ground of application, need not involve anything of an unduly elaborate, burdensome or analytical nature. The reasons for granting or refusing permission to appeal, in whole or part, in any given case will almost invariably be capable of being expressed in a concise and focused manner.

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 29 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.543181

ZZ v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 24 Jan 2014

The claimant had appealed against his exclusion, confirmed by the Special Immigration Appeal Commission. The case had been remitted to the European Court of Justice, which had now made its decision.
Held: The essence of the grounds for excluding a European Union national from the United Kingdom must be disclosed by virtue of article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Richards, Christopher Clarke LJJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 7, [2014] 3 All ER 587, [2014] WLR(D) 26, [2014] 2 WLR 791, [2014] 2 CMLR 49, [2014] QB 820, [2014] INLR 858

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 19(1), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European, Human Rights

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.520742