Category: Immigration

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Bakhtaur Singh: HL 1986

The claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to deport him failed before the adjudicator. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused leave to appeal to that Tribunal. He sought judicial review of that refusal. The issue was whether the ‘public interest’ in paragraph 154 of the Immigration Rules could include the interests of the Sikh community as well as the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control. Once again, the adjudicator had considered himself bound by dicta in an earlier High Court case.
Lord Bridge said that the Immigration Rules themselves are quite unlike ordinary delegated legislation, but: ‘are discursive in style, in part merely explanatory and, on their face, frequently offer no more than broad guidance as to how discretion is to be exercised in different typical situations. In so far as they lay down principles to be applied, they generally do so in loose and imprecise terms.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 910

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Darsham Singh Sohal QBD 1981
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.442728

Mwangi, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 18 Dec 2008

Application for judicial review challenging a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department notified by a letter dated 1 May 2007 refusing to grant the claimant the discretionary benefit of a policy (‘the Policy’) embodied in a document dated 21 June 2006 (but taking effect from 12 June 2006) entitled ‘One-off exercise to allow qualifying asylum seeking families to stay in the UK’ and sometimes referred to as the ‘Family ILR policy’.

Judges:

Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3130 (Admin), [2009] 3 FCR 303, [2009] Fam Law 393, [2009] 1 FLR 1550

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Family

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.293962

DT (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 11 Dec 2008

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3064 (Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 193

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – ZO (Somalia), Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (MM (Burma) and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (DT (Eritrea)) v Same CA 20-May-2009
Each claimant had made a failed asylum claim, followed by another which had not been yet determined after delay. They appealed against decisions that they were not entitled to obtainn employment.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The reception . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.278833

JH (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Feb 2009

Judges:

Laws, Wall, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 78, [2009] Imm AR 499, [2009] INLR 385

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At IAT – IA016582005 (Unreported) AIT 19-Sep-2007
. .

Cited by:

At CA – Mirza and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Dec-2016
In each case the applicant had sought to extend their leave to remain within the necessary time scale, but their applications had been defective. In one case the required biometric information had not been supplied, and in the other two the fees had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.295115

Tataw, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: CA 18 Jun 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans HL 1982
The Court found the probationer police constable to have been unlawfully induced to resign, but the court could not order his reinstatement. A power must be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the statute. Though courts may review the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.184449

M and Another (Children) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Feb 2003

The applicants sought to enter the UK to be with their parents. The respondent found that the possibility of violence from the father meant that they would not have suitable accomodation within the meaning of the rules.
Held: The consideration of whether suitable accomodation was available was not limited to the physical accomodation offered, but could include other issues. It could not have been Parliament’s intention to allow admission to circumstances creating a real risk of harm. The requirement was that suitable accommodation be made available by the parents.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Hale, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 263

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Rules 1994 (1994 HC 395) 297(iv)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.179002

Regina (on the Application of Mani) v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 9 Jul 2003

Where a destitute and disabled asylum seeker had a clear need for care and attention, the local authority had a duty to provide it. The claimant was an asylum seeker, with impaired mobility and a history of mental halth difficulties. At first he was provided accommodation by NASS, but was unhappy with it and sought assistance direct from the respondent council. Which was responsible? The council argued that the 1948 Act applied only to those whose disability directly affected there housing needs.
Held: The argument failed in the light of the authorities. The council had responsibility.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Simon Brown Mr Justice Nelson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 836, Times 23-Jul-2003, [2004] BLGR 35, [2004] LGR 35, [2004] HLR 5, (2003) 6 CCL Rep 376

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Asssistance Act 1948 21, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Mani) v Lambeth London Borough Council, Regina (Tasci) v Enfield London Borough Council, Regina (J) v Same Admn 18-Apr-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers, but also had disabilities, and sought housing assistance from the local authorities. The authorities replied that they had no duty to provide housing because of the Immigration Act.
Held: The 1948 Act . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte M 1997
. .
Cited – Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha CA 7-Sep-2000
The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority.
Held: The . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .

Cited by:

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

Immigration, Benefits, Housing

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.184338

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Skenderaj: CA 26 Apr 2002

The applicant sought asylum, claiming to be a target of an Albanian blood feud. He appealed a finding that his claim was not for a Convention reason, and did not amount to a claim of a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his membership of a particular social group.
Held: The question was whether he was a member of a particular social group. A social group for these purposes required a common characteristic by reason of which its members, cannot readily accept change; a recognised shared defining characteristic of the group which might set it apart which is other than a shared fear of persecution. The family was not so recognised as a social group, and the claim failed: ‘a family group could be a particular social group, since society recognises the family bond as distinct and attaches importance to it, but only if society also sets it apart in such a way as to stigmatise or discriminate against it for that reason.’

Judges:

The Hon Mrs Justice Arden Dbe

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 567, [2002] 4 All ER 555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Jun-2005
The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will.
Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v K, Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought asylum, fearing persecution as members of a social group. The fear of persecution had been found to be well founded, but that persecution was seen not to arise from membership of a particular social group.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.171226

Lismane v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 29 Jun 1998

Where an asylum seeker had housing which was sufficiently inadequate to render her homeless for the purposes of the section, she was not disallowed from receiving such assistance by the operation of the other section regarding asylum seekers

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1111

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 175(1) 186(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144590

Seye (Chen Children; Employment) France: UTIAC 28 Mar 2013

UTIAC (1) It is clear that income from illegal employment in the host Member State on the part of a parent of a ‘Chen’ child (Case c-200/02 Chen [2004] ECR I-9925) cannot create self-sufficiency for that child (W (China) and X (China) [2006] EWCA Civ 1494).
(2) The proposition in MA and Others (EU national: self-sufficiency; lawful employment) [2006] UKAIT 00090 and ER and Others (EU national; self-sufficiency; illegal employment) [2006] UKAIT 00096 that even lawful employment cannot create such self-sufficiency, where the parent is on limited leave or temporary admission, must be regarded as doubtful, in the light of Metock and Others [2008] EUECJ C-127/08 and Liu and Ors v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1275.
(3) It is, however, part of the binding ratio in Liu that lawful employment undertaken by a parent whose leave has been extended under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 cannot create self sufficiency for the ‘Chen’ child.

Judges:

Storey, Peter Lane UTJJ

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 178 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.473033

Azimi-Moayed and Others (Decisions Affecting Children; Onward Appeals) Iran: UTIAC 26 Apr 2013

UTIAC Decisions affecting children
(1) The case law of the Upper Tribunal has identified the following principles to assist in the determination of appeals where children are affected by the appealed decisions:
i) As a starting point it is in the best interests of children to be with both their parents and if both parents are being removed from the United Kingdom then the starting point suggests that so should dependent children who form part of their household unless there are reasons to the contrary.
ii) It is generally in the interests of children to have both stability and continuity of social and educational provision and the benefit of growing up in the cultural norms of the society to which they belong.
iii) Lengthy residence in a country other than the state of origin can lead to development of social cultural and educational ties that it would be inappropriate to disrupt, in the absence of compelling reason to the contrary. What amounts to lengthy residence is not clear cut but past and present policies have identified seven years as a relevant period.
iv) Apart from the terms of published policies and rules, the Tribunal notes that seven years from age four is likely to be more significant to a child that the first seven years of life. Very young children are focussed on their parents rather than their peers and are adaptable.
v) Short periods of residence, particularly ones without leave or the reasonable expectation of leave to enter or remain, while claims are promptly considered, are unlikely to give rise to private life deserving of respect in the absence of exceptional factors. In any event, protection of the economic well-being of society amply justifies removal in such cases.
Onward appeals
(2) Duties to have regard as a primary consideration to the best interests of a child are so well established that a judge should take the point for him or herself as an obvious point to be considered, where the issue arises on the evidence, irrespective of whether the appellants or the advocates have done so.
(3) Although in some cases this may require a judge to explore whether the duty requires further information to be obtained or inquiry to be made, the judge primarily acts on the evidence in the case. Where that evidence gives no hint of a suggestion that the welfare of the child is threatened by the immigration decision in question, or that the child’s best interests are undermined thereby, there is no basis for any further judicial exploration or reasoned decision on the matter.
(4) Even if a decision of the First-tier Tribunal involves the making of an error on a point of law, in deciding whether to grant permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, it is relevant whether there are any reasonable prospects of that Tribunal exercising its powers to re-make the decision in a different way. The Upper Tribunal is unlikely to do so if the error was marginal and would not have made a difference to the outcome.
(5) It is incompatible with the overriding objective and the scheme of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to permit a rule 25 reply to open up fundamentally different grounds of appeal for which permission has not been granted.

Judges:

Blake J, Taylor UTJ

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 197 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.473034

Zubair (EEA Regs: Self-Employed Persons) Pakistan: UTIAC 11 Apr 2013

UTIAC (1) The provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 concerning, respectively, self-employed persons and workers ultimately derive from different previous Directives and cannot be elided, so as, for example, to create a concept of ‘self-employment seeking’.
(2) Accordingly, a person cannot combine a period of self-employment with a period of seeking employment, so as to achieve a requisite period of residence under the Regulations.

Judges:

Blake J, Taylor UTJ

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 196 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.473036

Singh (Fee Award: Ancillary Decision) India: UTIAC 18 Apr 2013

UTIAC The Upper Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider a challenge to a decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge to make, or not to make, a fee award. A decision on a fee award is an ancillary decision within the meaning of the Appeals (Excluded decisions) Order 2009 and is therefore not appealable.

Judges:

Allen, Martin UTJJ

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 179 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.473035

In re M and N (Children); In re M (a Child) (Family proceedings: Immigration) and In re N (a Child) (Family proceedings: Immigration): FD 6 Oct 2008

Munby J expressed grave concern at the failure of parties and their representatives to keep the court informed as to events where there were associated immigration proceedings the outcome of which would effectively determine the private law children proceedings.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2281 (Fam), Times 26-Nov-2008, [2008] Fam Law 1192, [2008] 2 FLR 2030

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.276705

Korkmaz, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 4 Apr 2008

Challenge to lawfulness or otherwise of the detention of the claimant with a view to his removal as a failed asylum seeker in circumstances where, as of that date, there was in being an outstanding application by way of representations made by his solicitors that a fresh claim for asylum should be considered by the Secretary of State.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 950 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.278416

AB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 6 Dec 2007

The claimant came here from Jamaica, but overstayed. She married a British citizen in 2001 and applied for leave to remain. That was refused.
Held: In refusing such a claim, the tribunal ought to have given respect to the husband’s human rights. As a result of the decision would either have to abandon his family or his home. The decision was flawed. Sedley LJ said: ‘In substance, albeit not in form, [the husband] was a party to the proceedings. It was as much his marriage as the appellant’s which was in jeopardy, and it was the impact of removal on him rather than on her which, given the lapse of years since the marriage, was now critical. From Strasbourg’s point of view, his Convention rights were as fully engaged as hers. He was entitled to something better than the cavalier treatment he received . . It cannot be permissible to give less than detailed and anxious consideration to the situation of a British citizen who has lived here all his life before it is held reasonable and proportionate to expect him to emigrate to a foreign country in order to keep his marriage intact.’

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1302, [2007] UKHRR 1177, [2008] HRLR 17, [2008] 1 WLR 1893, [2008] Imm AR 306, [2008] INLR 83

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, Human Rights, Family

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.261816

EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept: CA 21 Nov 2006

The asylum applicant said that if she was returned to her home country, she would be judged under Sharia law, and would thereby lose custody of her son, and this would deny her her right to family life.
Held: Any such loss would not be complete. She would retain visitation rights, and therefore the article was not infringed, even though her rights would be substantially restricted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Carnwath, Lord Justice Gage and Mr Justice Bodey

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1531, [2007] UKHRR 1, [2007] Imm AR 347, [2007] 1 FLR 991, [2007] Fam Law 398, (2006) 150 SJLB 1570, [2007] 3 FCR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.246339

S and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Aug 2006

The asylum applicants had complained that the appellant’s discretionary leave policy for the grant of temporary admissions was unlawful. As failed asylum seekers, they had been held on temporary admission rather than being granted discretionary leave to remain. They had been involved in the hijacking of an airliner in order to escape Afghanistan. The defendant appealed a finding that the policy was a misuse of his power.
Held: The appeal failed. The appellant having had his initial decision to refuse discretionary leave to remain for six months, had sought to detain the claimants on the basis that they might be required to submit to immigration officers for examination. However no notice had been given to the claimants of such a request and, ‘It would be very far-fetched . . . to regard everyone [entitled] to discretionary leave as being ipso facto a person who might be required to submit to further examination, even when no change of circumstances was in question.’

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Brooke LJ VP, Neuberger LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1157, [2006] INLR 575

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3A(1), Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .

Cited by:

Cited – BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL 30-Apr-2008
The House considered whether the Secretary of State for Health acted lawfully in issuing guidance as to the employment of foreign doctors to employing bodies within the National Health Service in April 2006.
Held: The secretary of state’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.244169

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Behluli: CA 7 May 1998

The appellant argued that he had a legitimate expectation, based on letters to his solicitor from the Secretary of State, that his application for asylum would be considered pursuant to the Dublin Convention, an unincorporated international treaty.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘The extent to which statements could found a legitimate expectation depended upon the circumstances in which they were made: whether, reasonably construed, they could be taken as propounding a policy, or were merely statements applicable to particular cases or classes of cases. Regard had to be given to the background against which they were made and, if made against the background of statutory provisions, to the terms of the Act and any relevant rules.’

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 788, [1998] IAR 407

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Milazim Behluli Admn 8-Apr-1998
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Milazim Behluli Admn 8-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another CA 20-May-2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144266

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Doldur: CA 2 Apr 1998

It was wrong to impute deceit to an immigrant who entered after marrying after being given leave to enter when not further questioned about status on entry.

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 608, 1998 IMM AR 352

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Cengiz Doldur Admn 26-Jun-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of the immigration officer’s finding that he was an illegal immigrant within the section. He had failed to declare that after obtaining temporary permission to enter, he had got married. It was not suggested that . .
See Also – Doldur v Secretary of State for Home Department (No 2) CA 2-Jul-1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 9-Aug-2001
The Home Secretary had served notice that the applicant was an illegal immigrant, and liable to deportation. An order had been made for the cross examination of the applicant. He had come to England to study, but soon dropped his immediate plans. He . .
See Also – Doldur v Secretary of State for Home Department (No 2) CA 2-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144086

Syed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Apr 2013

The court was asked: did the professional level qualification of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) qualify or count as a qualification which entitled an applicant (if otherwise qualified) to leave to remain under the (now abolished) Tier 1 (Post – Study Work) Migrants route of the Points Based System in the Immigration Rules; or, if wider, under the relevant Home Office UKBA Policy Guidance document?
Held: No.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 984 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.473000

ZY (China) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 19 Feb 2013

Renewed application for permission to appeal, brought by ZY, an asylum seeker, who entered the UK using false documents and sought legal advice. He applied for asylum which was refused by the Secretary of State.

Judges:

Tomlinson LJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472892

MB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Feb 2013

Appeal against refusal of certificate of entitlement of abode, having failed to supply documentation required under the 2006 Regulations.

Judges:

Mummery, Richards, Leveson LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 220

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (Certificate of Entitlement to Right of Abode in the United Kingdom) Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472885

Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid: ECJ 18 Apr 2013

ECJ Opinion – Common European Asylum System – Procedures for its judicial enforcement – Council Regulation No 343/2003 – Determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum application presented by a third country national – Article 3(2) – Rights of asylum seekers – Exceptional situations as defined in Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N.S. and Others – Article 19(2) – Suspension of transfer of asylum seekers

Judges:

Jaaskinen AG

Citations:

C-4/11, [2013] EUECJ C-4/11, [2013] EUECJ C-4/11

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation No 343/2003

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472717

Zhang, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Apr 2013

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 891 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AA069062014 and Others AIT 30-Aug-2017
Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Family

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472687