Category: Immigration

B v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 30 Jul 2008

Appeal against an order made by the Secretary of State that it will be conducive to the public good that he should be deported, on the grounds that his removal is in the interests of national security. The appellant said that he would not be safe if he was deported to Algeria. The authorities there did not accept his identity, which the appellant refused to disclose.
Held: The Secretary of State’s case on the risk to national security had been made out. SIAC concluded that, notwithstanding his mental health difficulties, B had played a leading role in facilitating communications for Algerian terrorists, as well as being responsible for the procurement of false documentation and high technology equipment. The hearing of the case on safety on return did not take place at that time because of the unresolved question of B’s true identity.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2008] UKSIAC 9/2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At SIAC – B v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
The appellant was detained under immigration rules. He refused to provide details of his nationality and now complained of his continuing detention in the light of a finding that he was unlikely to be returnable to Algeria, that being what was . .
At SIAC – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.295107

GO (Nigeria) and HZ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1 Feb 2008

Application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Leave – GOO, EO and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Jul-2008
The court asked what are the legal consequences if a foreign student who has obtained leave to enter or remain in order to follow a named course embarks on a different course or fails the course examinations?
Held: There was no objection to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.266127

M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council: Admn 27 Apr 2004

The claimant, a Zimbabwean, was subject to immigration control. He was HIV positive, and sought assistance from the authority under the 1948 Act. The authority replied that his needs did not reach such a level as to require assistance under the section.
Held: The claim succeeded. The fact that medication and regular medical attention were required was sufficient to show a need for care and attention. That need arose from a combination of destitution and illness and not solely from destitution.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1109 (Admin), [2004] LGR 657, [2004] BLGR 657

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Appeal from – Slough Borough Council v M, Regina (on the Application Of) CA 25-May-2006
The claimant was subject to immigration control. He sought assistance under the 1948 Act on the basis that he suffered HIV. The authority appealed an order requiring them to provide assistance on the basis that he need for medication brought him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.263499

Bashir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 30 Nov 2007

B complained of the unreasonable length of time (32 months) for which had been detained pending deportation.
Held: Mitting J said: ‘What Toulson LJ did not address, because it was not necessary to address it on the facts, was whether or not a period of detention initially lawful could become unlawful by reason of it being unreasonably protracted.’ Of the 32 months only 23 came to be counted since the first 9 months were the result of an appeal and other matters for which the claimant was responsible, but ’23 months on any view must be at or near to the top of the period during which detention can lawfully occur.’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3017 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2007
The applicant had had his application for asylum rejected. Pending deportation, he had been held in custody. The court had found his detention unlawful.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The power to detain in such circumstances had . .

Cited by:

Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Cited – MH, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 14-Oct-2010
The claimant complained that his administrative detention for over 40 months had been unlawful. He now appealed against a finding that it had been lawful save for the final two months.
Held: The appeal failed. The period of time for which he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.262944

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Parvaz Akhtar: CA 1981

The applicant appealed refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. He was to be removed as an illegal immigrant. He had entered claiming to be registered as a British citizen but under somebody else’s identity.
Held: The Secretary of State had had no
power or intention to register X or any Y other than an actual son of Z. Accordingly, X never became a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Templeman LJ said: ‘The applicant relies on the registration effected on the application of Waris Ali. In my judgment, that registration does not prove that the applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration. When Waris Ali applied for the registration he undoubtedly intended to procure the registration of the applicant and nobody else. But the effect of the registration cannot depend on the intention of the applicant, Waris Ali. The registration which was in fact effected was the registration of Parvaz Akhtar, son of Waris Ali. This registration applies to the applicant and is conclusive of the claim of the applicant to be patrial if, but only if, the applicant is Parvaz Akhtar, son of Waris Ali. But the applicant has not proved that he is the person registered.’ Had registration of citizenship been obtained, for example, by a fraudulent representation that any requisite period of ordinary residence had elapsed or, had Mr Ali not been a U.K. citizen, by a fraudulent representation that he was a U.K. citizen, the citizenship thus obtained would endure until the citizen was deprived of it under the subsection, but a citizenship obtained by assumption of a false identity fell into a different category in that it never arose.

Judges:

Templeman LJ, Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1980] 2 All ER 735, [1980] 3 WLR 302, [1981] QB 46

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka CA 18-Jul-2007
The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was . .
Overruled – Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.254616

Al-Tamimi, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 15 May 2007

The applicant had been granted leave to remain in the UK, but now appealed refusal of his application for British citizenship on the basis of an alleged formaer connection with Iraqi intelligence.

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1962 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.258791

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sultan Mahmood: CA 1978

The applicant appealed refusal of his writ of habeas corpus. He had been arrested pending removal to Pakistan. He said that he had been registered a British Citizen under the 1948 Act. Whilst in Pakistan he had substituted his own photograph for that of his deceased relative, and entered the UK under the assumed name, and later obtained registration as a UK citizen. He said that he remained a UK citizen until his citizenship was revoked under section 20.
Held: The appeal failed. Stephenson LJ said that the ‘registration was a nullity’.
Roskill LJ: ‘before the provisions of section 20 can be prayed in aid, in my judgment the appellant must show that he can bring himself within subsection (1) of that section. He seeks to do so by reliance upon the fact of registration as evidenced by the certificate. If it were clear that the appellant was the Javed Iqbal originally named and identified in the Pakistani passport and in the other relevant documents and that the Secretary of State had intended to grant registration to that person, this argument would clearly have great force because it would be to that person so named and identified that that grant would have been directed. But the evidence is that that person was dead. The Secretary of State’s intention cannot have been to grant registration to the appellant for he did not know who the appellant was. He wrongly believed the appellant to be Javed Iqbal, which he was not, nor could have been, for that individual was dead.
There are, I think, only three possible effects of the purported registration. First, it was a grant to Javed Iqbal. Secondly, it was a grant to the appellant. Thirdly, it was a grant to nobody but was a nullity. I have given my reasons already for rejecting the first two possibilities. There remains the third, that the purported grant was a nullity. I accept that in some cases it may be difficult to draw a dividing line in these cases between a registration which is a nullity and therefore void, as I think is the case with the present registration, in which case the alleged citizen by registration cannot bring himself within section 20(1) at all, and a registration which is only voidable, in which case the machinery of section 20 . . has to be invoked . . [Counsel for the Secretary of State] accepted that it was not easy to formulate a dividing line between the two classes of case. I agree, but wherever that line is drawn, I am clearly of the view that the instant case is one in which the alleged British registration was a nullity.’
Geoffrey Lane LJ: ‘It seems to me that the only question to be decided is whether the appellant ever was a citizen of the United Kingdom by registration. I find it difficult to see how he could be. He chose to assume the identity of a dead man, he took the oath of allegiance and filled in the necessary forms in the dead man’s name. I find it impossible to say that in those circumstances Sultan Mahmood became a citizen of the United Kingdom any more than did Javed Iqbal. The proceedings were ineffective and section 20 never applied.’

Judges:

Roskill LJ, Stephenson LJ, Geoffrey Lane LJ

Citations:

[1981] QB 59

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka CA 18-Jul-2007
The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was . .
Cited – Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.254615

Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka: CA 18 Jul 2007

The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was unlawful, there never was a grant of citizenship to him, and therefore did not count towards any other claim based on residency.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P FD, Sedley, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 740, [2008] INLR 683

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Abdul Manan CA 1971
The applicant was a Pakistani seaman who had deserted from his ship and his presence in the UK was unlawful under the 1962 Act. He nevertheless claimed to be entitled to enter and remain as a person who had been ordinarily resident here for two . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sultan Mahmood CA 1978
The applicant appealed refusal of his writ of habeas corpus. He had been arrested pending removal to Pakistan. He said that he had been registered a British Citizen under the 1948 Act. Whilst in Pakistan he had substituted his own photograph for . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Parvaz Akhtar CA 1981
The applicant appealed refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. He was to be removed as an illegal immigrant. He had entered claiming to be registered as a British citizen but under somebody else’s identity.
Held: The Secretary of State had had no . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Margueritte CA 1982
The applicant first arrived from Mauritius in 1972, and was given limited leave to enter for a few months. He over-stayed until June 1974 when he paid a short visit to France. On return he was given one month’s leave to enter, but again overstayed. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naheed Ejaz QBD 23-Jul-1993
Using somebody else’s British passport, the applicant’s husband had masqueraded as a British citizen. The applicant had applied under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act for naturalisation as a British citizen on the ground that she was married to a . .

Cited by:

Overruled – Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.254600

Singh (Pargan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 10 Mar 1993

An issue arose as to whether the Secretary of State was required by section 18 of the Immigration Act 1981 to make regulations concerning the giving of notice of a decision for the purposes of appeal. if regulations were not made, the right of appeal conferred by the legislation could not have been exercised.
Held: Provisions for deemed service at the last known address of an applicant are intra vires. The Secretary of State had a duty to make such regulations. It would be assumed that Parliament intended that the person delegated with the relevant power should make regulations so as to activate the right in practice.
A duty to exercise a power would arise on a Minister where its exercise was necessary to give effect to rights created by Parliament.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘Sections 13 to 16 of the Act confer rights of appeal upon persons in relation to various actions and decisions affecting them, such as refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom, deportation orders and directions for removal. If those rights are to be effective the persons concerned must, where possible, be given such notice as will enable them to exercise those rights. In my view Parliament intended that the Secretary of State should be required to make regulations that would ensure, so far as practicable, that persons upon whom the rights of appeal had been conferred should be enabled effectively to exercise those rights. It follows that the Secretary of State does not have a discretion as to whether or not he shall make regulations.’
As to service: ‘Mr Mitchell’s argument that service on a person at his last known abode when he is known not to be there is Wednesbury unreasonable also fails. It is to be noted that the attack is not on the vires of regulation 6 but upon its exercise in the particular circumstances of this case. This argument necessarily involves construing ‘last known place of abode’ as meaning ‘last known place of abode at which there is reason to believe he might still be abiding.’ There is no warrant for such a construction. ‘Last known place of abode’ means exactly what it says, no more and no less. If it is known where a person was living but it is not known where he is now living, the former is his last known place of abode at which the regulation directs notice to be given. The formula is well known. For example, R.S.C., Ord. 10, r. 1(2)(a) provides for service of an originating process by posting to the defendant ‘at his usual or last known address.’ ‘

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1993, 1993 SC (HL) 1, [1992] 1 WLR 1052

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – RM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.89278

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz: CA 7 Dec 1993

The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British citizen.
Held: The Secretary was not entitled to treat her citizenship as a nullity. A registered or naturalised citizen is a British citizen and his Citizenship certificate remains valid until it is withdrawn under a s40 order.
Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘A person who has acquired British citizenship by registration or certificate of naturalisation can . . be deprived of his citizenship as a result of conduct that led to the grant of registration or naturalisation, or because of certain conduct thereafter. Subsequent conduct is dealt with in section 40(3) and consists of (a) disloyalty or disaffection to the Queen, (b) trading or communicating with the enemy in time of war or (c) imprisonment for twelve months or more within five years of the date when the person became a British citizen. We are not concerned with this subsection.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Independent 22-Dec-1993, Times 07-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 All ER 436, [1994] QB 496, [1994] 2 WLR 534

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naheed Ejaz QBD 23-Jul-1993
Using somebody else’s British passport, the applicant’s husband had masqueraded as a British citizen. The applicant had applied under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act for naturalisation as a British citizen on the ground that she was married to a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hicks, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Dec-2005
The claimant, an Australian, presently held by the US as a suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay sought to be registered as a British Citizen, saying he was entitled to registration as of right.
Held: The past behaviour of an applicant was not . .
Cited – Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.87984

Junied, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2019

Consideration of aspects of the Points-Based System (‘PBS’) relating to applications for leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrants. In essence, what is said is that a particular requirement of the scheme, as contained in paragraph 41-SD(c) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, has proved impossible of fulfilment by the applicant; that in consequence the decision-making process on the part of the respondent Secretary of State was unfair and unreasonable; and that the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the applicant further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant should accordingly be quashed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Davis

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 2293, [2020] WLR(D) 7, [2020] 4 WLR 18

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651073

AD (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Mar 2008

Applications for permission to appeal out of time and for permission to appeal from the decision of the AIT dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266782

Mutlu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2007

Renewed application for permission to appeal – applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the applicant indefinite leave to remain, which had been sought pursuant to the Secretary of State’s long stay policy contained in paragraphs 276(A) to (B) of the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 395). Inherent in that decision was a further refusal, namely, not to revoke a deportation order earlier made in relation to the applicant.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1517

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266577

FK (Democratic Republic of Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Dec 2007

Appeal in which the issue centres around the concept of proportionality in applying Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), particularly where there has been significant delay on the part of the Secretary of State in dealing with an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1545

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266570

Mamki, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Apr 2008

The applicant challenged his continued detention. He had been convicted of offences and was to be deported, but it was considered unsafe to return him to Iraq, and also that he would abscond if released.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266497

MK (Accession, Effect on Asylum Related Appeals) Bulgaria CG: IAT 17 Jan 2007

From 1 January 2007 nationals of Bulgaria and Romania became EEA nationals. This has major consequences for any pending asylum-related appeals by such persons. If their appeal relates to an immigration decision made before 1 January 2007 – and it has not been withdrawn – it must be allowed, since removal of EEA nationals is unlawful except where public policy, health or security reasons require otherwise. (The only exception to this arises in respect of deportation decisions governed by regulation 8(2) of the Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006.)
Reported decisions on the current AIT list of Country Guideline cases relating to countries which have since acceded to the EU no longer afford current guidance. It is appropriate, therefore, that they be removed. It may be in an unusual case raising issues for example of chain refoulement, that there will still be a role for country guidance cases dealing with member States of the EU, but clearly none of the existing cases dealing with the accession member States fall into that category.

Citations:

[2007] UKAIT 00004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.248461

Starred SS (Eco, Article 8) Malaysia: IAT 29 Apr 2004

From refusal of entry clearance

Judges:

Ouseley J P

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00091, [2004] Imm AR 153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.198965

Dilip Upreti and Others (Aps) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 4 Jun 2015

Application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal. The application is made by each of Dilip Upreti, his wife and two children. The Secretary of State for the Home Department appears as the respondent.

Judges:

Lord Brodie

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547653

P And S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda: ECJ 4 Jun 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents – Directive 2003/109/EC – Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) – National legislation imposing on third-country nationals with long-term resident status a civic integration obligation, attested by an examination, under pain of a fine

Judges:

R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), P

Citations:

C-579/13, [2015] EUECJ C-579/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:369

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2003/109/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547704

SJ v Belgium (Striking Out): ECHR 19 Mar 2015

ECHR Grand Chamber
Article 37
Article 37-1
Striking out applications
Application concerning absence of suspensive effect of application for judicial review of deportation order or of refusal of leave to remain: struck out following friendly settlement
Article 13
Effective remedy
Absence of suspensive effect of application to Aliens Appeals Board for judicial review of deportation order or of refusal of leave to remain: struck out following friendly settlement
Facts – On 30 July 2007, when the applicant, a Nigerian national, was eight months pregnant, she lodged an application for asylum in which she stated that she had fled her country after the family of the child’s father had tried to put pressure on her to have an abortion. In May 2010 the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons rejected the asylum application because of inconsistencies in the applicant’s account. That decision was upheld by the Aliens Appeals Board.
The applicant was diagnosed as HIV positive in August 2007 and has been undergoing treatment since that time.
In the meantime the applicant lodged an application for leave to remain on medical grounds which was rejected on the basis that she could be treated in Nigeria. An order to leave the country was served on her. The applicant lodged a request under the extremely urgent procedure for a stay of execution of the measure, together with an application to set aside the decisions in question. The request for a stay of execution was rejected by the Aliens Appeals Board. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Conseil d’Etat against the judgment of the Aliens Appeals Board, alleging that the risk of serious and irreversible harm in the event of her return to Nigeria, and the presence of her two young children – born in April 2009 and November 2012 – had not been specifically taken into consideration, and that appeals to the Aliens Appeals Board were ineffective. On 24 December 2010 the time-limit for leaving the country was extended by the Aliens Office for one month. On 6 January 2011 the Conseil d’Etat declared the appeal against the Aliens Appeals Board judgment inadmissible. According to the information in the file, the application to set aside the decisions of the Aliens Office is still pending before the Aliens Appeals Board.
In a judgment of 27 February 2014 a Chamber of the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3, as the applicant had not had an effective remedy in the sense of one which had automatic suspensive effect and by which she could obtain an effective review of her arguments alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, given that applications to the Aliens Appeal Board to set aside an order to leave the country or a refusal of leave to remain did not suspend enforcement of the removal order. The Chamber further held by a majority that enforcement of the decision to deport the applicant to Nigeria would not entail a violation of Article 3. It held unanimously that, even supposing that the Court had jurisdiction to examine the complaint of a violation of Article 8, there had been no violation of that provision.
On 7 July 2014 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the Government and the applicant.
Law – Article 37: In August 2014 the Court received a proposal for a friendly settlement from the Government, in which the latter stressed the strong humanitarian considerations weighing in favour of regularising the applicant’s residence status and that of her children.
In September 2014 the applicant decided to accept the proposal made by the Belgian State, subject to three conditions: that she and her three children be granted unconditional and indefinite leave to remain, that she be awarded compensation in an amount of EUR 7,000 in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had sustained, and that the residence permit be issued to her in person. The Government informed the Court that they agreed to the conditions stipulated by the applicant, and on 6 January 2015 the applicant and her children were issued with residence permits granting them indefinite leave to remain.
The Court further considered that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols.
Conclusion: struck out (sixteen votes to one).

Citations:

70055/10 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 543

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547582

MSU (S104(4B) Notices) Bangladesh: UTIAC 20 Dec 2019

1. Where s.104(4A) applies to an appeal, neither the First-tier Tribunal nor the Upper Tribunal has any jurisdiction unless and until a notice is given in accordance with s.104(4B).
2. If such a notice is given, it has the effect of retrospectively causing the appeal to have been pending throughout, and validating any act by either Tribunal that was done without jurisdiction for the reason in (1) above.
3. As the matter stands at present, there are no ‘relevant practice directions’ governing the s.104(4B) notice in either Tribunal.
4. The Upper Tribunal has power to extend time for a s.104(4B) notice. Despite the provisions of Upper Tribunal rule 17A(4), such a power can be derived from s.25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 412 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650805

KF and Others (Entry Clearance, Relatives of Refugees) Syria: UTIAC 11 Dec 2019

1. In applications for entry clearance, the starting and significant point in applications for entry clearance is the Article 8 rights of the sponsor or others in the UK. A fact sensitive analysis is essential.
2. There is no blanket prohibition on the relatives of refugees other than a spouse and/or children.
3. As was made clear in Agyarko [2017] UKSC 11 the purpose of the Immigration Rules is to enable decision makers to understand and apply the appropriate weight to be given to the public interest. That the appellants in an application for entry clearance do not meet the Immigration Rules is an adverse factor.
4. It is Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] UKSC 4 rather than AT and AHI v Entry Clearance Officer Abu Dhabi [ 2016] UKUT 227 (IAC) which should guide the Tribunal in relation to the role of international treaties which have not been incorporated into domestic law, so that it may be material that an outcome is in harmony with such international instruments rather than that they should be accorded substantial weight.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 413 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650803

WA (Role and Duties of Judge) Egypt: UTIAC 16 Mar 2020

1. During the taking of evidence a judge’s role is merely supervisory.
2. If something happens during a hearing that disrupts the normal course of taking evidence it is essential that the judge records what happened and why; who said what; and what decision the judge made and on what basis.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 127 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650791

SB (Vulnerable Adult: Credibility) Ghana: UTIAC 22 Nov 2019

(1) The fact that a judicial fact-finder decides to treat an appellant or witness as a vulnerable adult does not mean that any adverse credibility finding in respect of that person is thereby to be regarded as inherently problematic and thus open to challenge on appeal.
(2) By applying the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010, two aims are achieved. First, the judicial fact-finder will ensure the best practicable conditions for the person concerned to give their evidence. Secondly, the vulnerability will also be taken into account when assessing the credibility of that evidence.
(3) The Guidance makes it plain that it is for the judicial fact-finder to determine the relationship between the vulnerability and the evidence that is adduced.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 398 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650802

PS (Christianity – Risk) Iran CG: UTIAC 20 Feb 2020

1. This country guidance applies to protection claims from Iranians who claim to have converted from Islam to Christianity.
2. Insofar as they relate to non-ethnic Christians, this decision replaces the country guidance decisions in FS and Others (Iran – Christian Converts) Iran CG [2004] UKIAT 00303 and SZ and JM (Christians – FS confirmed) Iran CG [2008] UKAIT 00082 which are no longer to be followed.
3. Decision makers should begin by determining whether the claimant has demonstrated that it is reasonably likely that he or she is a Christian. If that burden is discharged the following considerations apply:
i) A convert to Christianity seeking to openly practice that faith in Iran would face a real risk of persecution.
ii) If the claimant would in fact conceal his faith, decision-makers should consider why. If any part of the claimant’s motivation is a fear of such persecution, the appeal should be allowed.
iii) If the claimant would choose to conceal his faith purely for other reasons (family pressure, social constraints, personal preference etc) then protection should be refused. The evidence demonstrates that private and solitary worship, within the confines of the home, is possible and would not in general entail a real risk of persecution.
4. In cases where the claimant is found to be insincere in his or her claimed conversion, there is not a real risk of persecution ‘in-country’. There being no reason for such an individual to associate himself with Christians, there is not a real risk that he would come to the adverse attention of the Iranian authorities. Decision-makers must nevertheless consider the possible risks arising at the ‘pinch point’ of arrival:
i) All returning failed asylum seekers are subject to questioning on arrival, and this will include questions about why they claimed asylum;
ii) A returnee who divulges that he claimed to be a Christian is reasonably likely to be transferred for further questioning;
iii) The returnee can be expected to sign an undertaking renouncing his claimed Christianity. The questioning will therefore in general be short and will not entail a real risk of ill-treatment;
iv) If there are any reasons why the detention becomes prolonged, the risk of ill-treatment will correspondingly rise. Factors that could result in prolonged detention must be determined on a case by case basis. They could include but are not limited to:
a) Previous adverse contact with the Iranian security services;
b) Connection to persons of interest to the Iranian authorities;
c) Attendance at a church with perceived connection to Iranian house churches;
d) Overt social media content indicating that the individual concerned has actively promoted Christianity.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 46 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650786

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 the date of the grant of leave.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 84 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650778

Niaz (Niaa 2002 S 104: Pending Appeal) Pakistan: UTIAC 25 Nov 2019

(1) Section 104(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which an appeal under section 82(1) is not finally determined.
(2) Although section 104(2) is describing situations in which an appeal is not to be regarded as finally determined, the corollary is that, where none of the situations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) apply (and the appeal has not lapsed or been withdrawn or abandoned), the appeal in question must be treated as having been finally determined.
(3) An appeal which has ceased to be pending within the meaning of section 104 becomes pending again if the Upper Tribunal’s decision refusing permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal is quashed on judicial review.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 399 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650799

Rana (S 85A; Educational Loans Scheme) Bangladesh: UTIAC 15 Nov 2019

1. There was nothing in s 85A of the 2002 Act preventing the Secretary of State from adducing evidence.
2. The requirement to show that a loan was ‘part of an Academic or Educational Loan Scheme’ for the purposes of paragraph 1B(d)(7) of Appendix C is not met merely by showing that the loan was for educational purposes. Such a scheme will have some element of government or official involvement, will be of advantage to students in comparison with ordinary commercial loans, and will be concerned with the loans as a group as well as individually.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 396 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650800

Isufaj (PTA Decisions/Reasons; EEA Reg 37 Appeals) Albania: UTIAC 12 Aug 2019

(1) Judges deciding applications for permission to appeal should ensure that, as a general matter, there is no apparent contradiction between the decision on the application and what is said in the ‘reasons for decision’ section of the document that records the decision and the reasons for it. As was said in Safi and others (permission to appeal decisions) [2018] UKUT 388 (IAC), a decision on a permission application must be capable of being understood by the Tribunal’s administrative staff, the parties and by the court or tribunal to which the appeal lies. In the event of such an apparent contradiction or other uncertainty, the parties can expect the Upper Tribunal to treat the decision as the crucial element.
(2) Although regulation 37(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 provides that a person may not appeal under regulation 36 whilst he or she is in the United Kingdom, where the decision in question falls within regulation 37(1)(a) to (g), once the appeal is instituted by a person who is then outside the United Kingdom, there is no statutory prohibition on the appeal continuing if the person concerned thereafter is physically present in the United Kingdom. It will, however, be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to give that person temporary admission for the purpose of attending an appeal hearing, since regulation 41 does not apply to such cases.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 283 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.644395

Smith (Appealable Decisions; PTA Requirements; Anonymity : Belgium): UTIAC 28 Jun 2019

(1) A decision by the First-tier Tribunal not to decide a ground of appeal constitutes a ‘decision’ for the purposes of s.11(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It may therefore be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
(2) If an appellant’s appeal before the First-tier Tribunal succeeds on some grounds and fails on other grounds, the appellant will not be required to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in respect of any ground on which he or she failed, so long as a determination of that ground in the appellant’s favour would not have conferred on the appellant any material (ie tangible) benefit, compared with the benefit flowing from the ground or grounds on which the appellant was successful in the First-tier Tribunal.
(3) In the event that the respondent to the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal obtains permission to appeal against that Tribunal’s decision regarding the grounds upon which the First-tier Tribunal found in favour of the appellant, then, ordinarily, the appellant will be able to rely upon rule 24(3)(e) of the 2008 Rules in order to argue in a response that the appellant should succeed on the grounds on which he or she was unsuccessful in the First-tier Tribunal. Any such response must be filed and served in accordance with those Rules and the Upper Tribunal’s directions.
(4) If permission to appeal is required, any application for permission should be made to the First-tier Tribunal in accordance with rule 33 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, within the time limits there set out. This includes cases where the appellant has succeeded on some grounds but failed on others, in respect of which a material benefit would flow (see (2) above).
(5) There is, however, no jurisdictional fetter on the Upper Tribunal entertaining an application for permission to appeal, even though the condition contained in rule 21(2)(b) of the 2008 Rules has not been met, in that the First-tier Tribunal has not refused (wholly or partly), or has not refused to admit, an application for permission to appeal made to that Tribunal. Rule 7(2)(a) of the 2008 Rules permits the Upper Tribunal to waive any failure to comply with a requirement of the Rules. The guidance in EG and NG (UT rule 17: withdrawal; rule 24: Scope) Ethiopia [2013] UKUT 143 (IAC) is otherwise confirmed.
(6) The Upper Tribunal is, nevertheless, very unlikely to be sympathetic to a request that it should invoke rule 7(2)(a), where a party (A), who could and should have applied for permission to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against an adverse decision of that Tribunal, seeks to challenge that decision only after the other party has been given permission to appeal against a decision in the same proceedings which was in favour of A.
(7) When deciding whether to make an anonymity direction, the starting point is that open justice is a fundamental principle of our legal system. Subject to statutory prohibitions on disclosure, any derogation from that principle should be allowed only to the extent that is necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice. As a result, just as is the case in other jurisdictions, the parties in immigration proceedings should be named, unless doing so would cause harm, or create the risk of harm, of such a nature as to require derogation from the basic principle. In most cases involving international protection, anonymity of an individual will be required, lest the proceedings themselves should aggravate or give rise to such a risk. That will normally be the case throughout the course of the proceedings, including any appeals.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 216 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.644391

Banger (EEA: EFM – Right of Appeal : South Africa): UTIAC 10 Apr 2019

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (‘the 2016 Regs’) specifically excluded a right of appeal for Extended Family Members (‘EFMs’). The 2016 Regs have been amended pursuant to the Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with effect from 29th March 2019, so as to provide EFMs with a right of appeal. This does not have retrospective effect.
It is open to those EFMs against whom a decision was made under the 2016 Regs but before 29 March 2019 to request a new decision from the Secretary of State in order to generate a right of appeal.
Alternatively the EFM may invoke the doctrine of direct effect under EU law in relation to a decision which falls into the lacuna between the 2006 regulations and the amended 2016 regulations, and apply under rule 20 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (IAC) Rules 2014 for an extension of time to provide a notice of appeal to that Tribunal.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 194 (IAC), [2019] Imm AR 1048

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.644387

Sutharsan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (UT Rule 29 : Time Limit): UTIAC 1 Jul 2019

The 21-day time limit in rule 29(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for filing an acknowledgment of service in immigration judicial review proceedings begins to run on the day after the person concerned is provided with a copy of the application for judicial review, not on the day it was sent. A copy that is sent by post will be deemed to have been provided on the second business day after it was posted, unless the contrary is proved.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 217 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.644392

AAR and AA (Non-Arab Darfuris – Return) Sudan: UTIAC 7 Aug 2019

The situation in Sudan remains volatile after civil protests started in late 2018 and the future is unpredictable. There is insufficient evidence currently available to show that the guidance given in AA (non-Arab Darfuris – relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 00056 and MM (Darfuris) Sudan CG [2015] UKUT 10 (IAC) requires revision. Those cases should still be followed.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 282 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.644394

Bhavsar (Late Application for PTA: Procedure : South Africa): UTIAC 12 Apr 2019

(1) There is nothing in the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 that prevents the First-tier Tribunal from refusing to admit an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, where the application is made outside the relevant time limit and the First-tier Tribunal does not extend time.
(2) The appropriate course, in the case of such an application, is for the First-tier Tribunal to refuse to admit it. This will mean that any subsequent application to the Upper Tribunal in the case for permission to appeal to that Tribunal will be subject to rule 21(7) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, whereby the Upper Tribunal must only admit the application made to it (whether or not that application was in time) if the Upper Tribunal considers it is in the interests of justice for it to do so.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 196 (IAC), [2019] Imm AR 1061

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.644388

DC (Trafficking, Protection/Human Rights Appeals : Albania): UTIAC 3 Sep 2019

In the light of the judgment of Flaux LJ in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594 and subsequent decisions of the Upper Tribunal and Administrative Court, a tribunal deciding a protection or human rights appeal, which concerns alleged trafficking within the scope of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and decisions of the Competent Authority (CA) under the United Kingdom’s National Referral Mechanism, should proceed as follows:
(a) In a protection appeal, the ‘reasonable grounds’ or ‘conclusive grounds’ decision of the CA will be part of the evidence that the tribunal will have to assess in reaching its decision on that appeal, giving the CA’s decision such weight as is due, bearing in mind that the standard of proof applied by the CA in a ‘conclusive grounds’ decision was the balance of probabilities.
(b) In a human rights appeal, a finding by the tribunal that the CA has failed to reach a rational decision on whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking, such as to be eligible for leave to remain in the United Kingdom for that reason alone, may lead the tribunal to allow the human rights appeal, on the basis that removing the appellant at this stage would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights. This scenario is, however, of narrow ambit and is unlikely to be much encountered in practice.
(c) In a human rights appeal, the question whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking may be relevant to the issue of whether the appellant’s removal would breach the ECHR, even where it is not asserted there is a trafficking-related risk of harm in the country of proposed return and irrespective of what is said in sub-paragraph (b) above: e.g. where the fact of trafficking may have caused the appellant physical or psychological harm. Here, as in sub-paragraph (a) above, the CA’s decision on past trafficking will be part of the evidence to be assessed by the tribunal.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 351 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.644396

Mirza v Bevandorlasi es Allampolgarsagi Hivatal (Borders, Asylum And Immigration): ECJ 8 Mar 2016

(Advocate General’s Opinion) Area of freedom, security and justice – Borders, asylum and immigration – Regulation No 604/2013 (Dublin III) – Examination of an application for international protection – Conditions for the exercise of the Member States’ right to send an applicant to a safe third country – Obligations of the Member State responsible for examining the application in the event that the applicant is taken back

Judges:

Kokott AG

Citations:

C-695/15, [2016] EUECJ C-695/15 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Mirza v Bevandorlasi es Allampolgarsagi Hivatal (Borders, Asylum And Immigration) ECJ 17-Mar-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Preliminary reference – urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.561957

Chege (Section 117D D Article 8 D Approach : Kenya): UTIAC 5 Mar 2015

The correct approach, where an appeal on human rights grounds has been brought in seeking to resist deportation, is to consider:
i. is the appellant a foreign criminal as defined by s117D (2) (a), (b) or (c);
ii. if so, does he fall within paragraph 399 or 399A of the Immigration Rules;
iii. if not are there very compelling circumstances over and beyond those falling within 399 and 399A relied upon, such identification to be informed by the seriousness of the criminality and taking into account the factors set out in s117B.
Compelling as an adjective has the meaning of having a powerful and irresistible effect; convincing.
The purpose of paragraph 398 is to recognize circumstances that are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the public interest in deportation but do not fall within paragraphs 399 and 399A.
The task of the judge is to assess the competing interests and to determine whether an interference with a person’s right to respect for private and family life is justified under Article 8(2) or whether the public interest arguments should prevail notwithstanding the engagement of Article 8.
It follows from this that if an appeal does not succeed on human rights grounds, paragraph 397 provides the respondent with a residual discretion to grant leave to remain in exceptional circumstances where an appellant cannot succeed by invoking rights protected by Article 8 of the ECHR.

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 165 (IAC), [2015] Imm AR 850

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.547320

KK (Application of G) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 30 Sep 2013

There is no merit in the argument that the country guidance given by this tribunal in GJ and others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 319 (IAC) is not rational or that it is inconsistent with the evidence which had been accepted by the tribunal.

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 512 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.536226

Kabia (MF: Para 398 – Exceptional Circumstances) (Gambia): UTIAC 29 Aug 2013

(1) The new rules relating to article 8 claims advanced by foreign criminals seeking to resist deportation are a complete code and the exceptional circumstances to be considered in the balancing exercise involve the application of a proportionality test as required by the Strasbourg jurisprudence: MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192 at para 43.
(2) The question being addressed by a decision maker applying the new rules set out at paragraph 398 of HC 395 in considering a claim founded upon article 8 of the ECHR and that being addressed by the judge who carries out what was referred to in MF (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 393 (IAC) as the second step in a two-stage process is the same one that, properly executed, will return the same answer.
(3) The new rules speak of ‘exceptional circumstances’ but, as has been made clear by the Court of Appeal in MF (Nigeria), exceptionality is a likely characteristic of a claim that properly succeeds rather than a legal test to be met. In this context, ‘exceptional’ means circumstances in which deportation would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the individual or their family such that a deportation would not be proportionate’.

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 569 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.536222

Odedra, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Ijr): UTIAC 30 Jan 2015

Application for judicial review of the Respondent’s decision dated 2 June 2014 to refuse the applicant’s claim for asylum and to certify the claim under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and following removal directions set on 11 June 2014 for the applicant’s removal.

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 76 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.543182

Babajanov (Continuity of Residence – Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006) Azerbaijan: UTIAC 3 Oct 2013

(1) The right of permanent residence under regulation 15 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 is capable of being established whilst a national of a Member State or a family member of that national is outside the host country.
(2) Leaving aside military service, the reasons for that absence must come within regulation 3(2) (which corresponds with provisions 16(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC). The specific reasons set out in regulation 3(2)(c) are not exhaustive, given the phrase ‘such as’, which precedes them; but the absence must be for ‘an important reason’.
(3) Accordingly, in determining whether a period of absence falls within regulation 3(2)(c), regard must be had to the purpose giving rise to that absence. The purpose needs to be of an importance comparable to those specified in regulation 3(2)(c) and involve (i) compelling events and/or (ii) an activity linked to the exercise of Treaty rights in the host country.

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 513 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.536227

Islam (Para 245X(HA): Five Years’ Study : Bangladesh): UTIAC 20 Aug 2013

Paragraph 245X(ha) of HC 395 must be read as requiring the calculation of the five years spent in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Migrant or as a student studying at degree level or above to include time spent as a student before the introduction of Tier 4. Nothing in relevant Guidance permits a contrary result.

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 608 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.536220