Category: Immigration

Abdin (Domicile – Actually Polygamous Marriages) Bangladesh: UTIAC 10 Sep 2012

UTIAC Whilst the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 amended section 11(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 so that a potentially polygamous marriage would not be void if either party was at the time of the marriage domiciled in England and Wales, it did not alter the position regarding actually polygamous marriages. Under section 11(d) of the 1973 Act a polygamous marriage entered into outside England and Wales shall still be void if either party at the time of the marriage was domiciled in England and Wales.

Judges:

Storey UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 309 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 11(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Family

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464258

AK (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 May 2007

The claimant sought to appeal a refusal of judicial review of the Home Secretary’s refusal to treat the appellant as having made a fresh asylum or human rights claim, following the rejection of an earlier claim which had resulted in an unsuccessful appeal.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 535

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.253257

Regina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar: CA 23 Sep 2003

The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading?
Held: No simple test could be laid down, and each case is to be considered individually. The appeal court, having seen al the evidence was in a position to judge the situation just as much as was the judge at first instance. The conclusion reached did not follow from the evidence, and was set aside. It was not possible to find inhuman or degrading treatment in the circumstances of this case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1285, Times 09-Oct-2003, (2003) 7 CCLR 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X CA 1997
Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21.
Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best . .
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 – O’Rourke v United Kingdom ECHR 26-Jun-2001
The applicant was a sex offender who on release from prison had found temporary accommodation from which he had been evicted for pestering female residents. He ignored advice to go to a night shelter whilst a decision on permanent re-housing was . .
Cited – East African Asians v United Kingdom ECHR 1973
(Commission) A group of Asian men, United Kingdom citizens, complained that, among other things, their Article 8 rights to respect for family life were infringed when they were refused permission to enter the United Kingdom to join their wives. The . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Applied – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 4-Feb-2004
The claimant had sought asylum on the day after arrival, and had therefore been refused any assistance beyond the provision of a list of charities who might assist. His lawyers were unable to secure either shelter or maintenance, and he had been . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.186380

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mpembele: CA 20 Feb 1997

The Secretary of State sought leave to appeal reversal of his refusal to grant the applicant asylum. The applicant had fled Angola in several years before and claimed he would be in danger of political violence if returned. The secretary of state considered that the applicants political involvements were not such as to place him at risk and the situation as a whole had improved.
Held: The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had failed to address properly the issues listed in Borissov, and leave would be granted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Saville, Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1060

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Assah 1994
The adjudicator had accepted at least a substantial part of the appellant’s evidence, whereas the IAT, without the benefit of hearing it, had concluded that none of the accounts which he had put forward in relation to past material events was true. . .
Cited – Borissov v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1996
The jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in asylum cases is not limited to questions of law, but the IAT should exercise great caution before interfering in a finding of fact and particularly where that finding derived from his view of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141456

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Kamalakkanan: CA 29 Jan 1997

Renewed application for leave to bring judicial review on the basis that the adjudicator was alleged to have misapplied the Immigration Rules as to internal flight. The applicant was from Sri Lanka. The applicant’s evidence and submissions that conditions in Colombo were unsafe for him were rejected by the special adjudicator, and there were plain findings of fact that there was no reasonable likelihood that the applicant would be persecuted in the Colombo area.
Held: Given the findings of fact made, a reference to the particular rule would not have made a difference. Appeal rejected.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 875

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141271

Orszagos Idegenrendeszeti Foigazgatosag Del-Alfoldi Regionalis Igazgatosag (Opinion): ECJ 23 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of ??freedom, security and justice – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32 / EU – Request for international protection – Article 33, paragraph 2 – Grounds for inadmissibility – National regulations providing for the inadmissibility of the application if the applicant has arrived in the Member State concerned from a country where he is not exposed to persecution or to the risk of serious harm or if this country grants sufficient protection – Articles 35, 38, paragraph 4, articles 40 and 43 – Directive 2013/33 / EU – Article 2, sub h),Articles 8 and 9 – Asylum procedure – Return measure – Procedural modalities – Detention – Duration of detention – Legality of detention – Examination – Appeal – Right to an effective remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Citations:

C-924/19, [2020] EUECJ C-924/19PPU_O, ECLI: EU:C:2020:294, [2020] EUECJ C-924/19PPU

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.660146

AM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Legal ‘Limbo’): UTIAC 1 Feb 2021

(1) A person whose removal from the United Kingdom has become an impossibility in the sense identified by the House of Lords in R (Khadir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 39 cannot be subject to immigration bail (formerly temporary admission). Such ‘Khadir’ Impossibility is, however, a high threshold to surmount.
(2) Applying the four-stage analysis of Haddon Cave LJ in RA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 850, an individual who is subject to immigration bail may still succeed in a human rights challenge, based on ending his state of legal ‘limbo’ in the United Kingdom, where the case is of a truly exceptional nature.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 62 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.660044

DH (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Dec 2012

Elias LJ said: ‘The right of residence is a right to reside in the territory of the EU. It is not a right to any particular quality of life or to any particular standard of living. Accordingly, there is no impediment to exercising the right to reside if residence remains possible as a matter of substance, albeit that the quality of life is diminished’

Judges:

Elias LJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1736, [2013] 2 CMLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
Cited – Dereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .

Cited by:

Cited – HC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-Nov-2017
This appeal concerns the rights of so-called ‘Zambrano carers’ and their children to financial support from the state. The appellant, an Algerian national married and had children here, but was refused housing after the break up the marriage. HC . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.467627

Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others: Admn 9 Aug 2012

The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence against him would have been obtained by torture.

Judges:

Hughes LJ Silber J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2349 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
At ECHR – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
ECHR PR – Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2012
(Press Release) Diplomatic assurances will protect Abu Qatada from torture but he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him. . .
SIAC Bail application – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 6-Feb-2012
Application for bail. . .
SIAC – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 28-May-2012
SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his . .

Cited by:

See Also – Capita Alternative Fund Services (Guernsey) Ltd and Another v Drivers Jonas (A Firm) CA 8-Nov-2012
The defendants appealed against the quantum of damages awarded against them for professional negligence in the valuation of a factory outlet centre. They said that in calculating damages for the trust claimants, the court should allow for the tax . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Admn Reasons – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
Admn Reasons – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
Cited – 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, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463651

Onuekwere (Imprisonment – Residence) Nigeria: UTIAC 3 Aug 2012

Order for reference to European Court of Justice

Judges:

Lord Ballantyne UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 269 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Reference – Onuekwere v Secretary of State For The Home Department ECJ 3-Oct-2013
ECJ Opinion – Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16 – Continuity of residence required in order to acquire the right of . .
Reference – Onuekwere v Secretary of State For The Home Department ECJ 16-Jan-2014
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16(2) and (3) – Right of permanent residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen – Taking into consideration . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463525

Ewulo (Effect of Family Permit – OFM) Nigeria: UTIAC 13 Jul 2012

i) Where a family permit has been issued by an ECO after inquiry pursuant to regulation 12 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and is used to enter the United Kingdom a subsequent application for a residence card is to be determined under regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.
ii) Where the validity of the issue of the family permit is not contested by the Secretary of State and the permit has not been revoked, the issue is whether there has been a material change of circumstances since arrival with the consequence that the claimant no longer qualifies as an extended family member

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 238 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463332

Akinci (Paragraph 21 Hc 510 – Correct Approach): UTIAC 12 Jul 2012

The correct approach to paragraph 21 of HC 510 invites consideration of the following matters:
i. The price for acquisition of a business should make commercial sense. An exaggerated price or one which does not reflect in any way the true value of the business may lead to a legitimate enquiry as to the truth of the transaction or the intentions of the parties.
ii. A business plan must be realistic having regard to the nature of the enterprise. It is legitimate to ask further questions where the projected turnover is substantially greater than that reflected in the accounts of the business being acquired.
iii. Even where a business is not expected to be profitable in the short term, revenue generated may well be enough to meet short term liabilities and provide enough for the applicant’s support.
iv. It is important therefore to identify the likely liabilities and what the applicant’s personal needs are in order to see if they can be met out of cash flow or the initial investment. The test is not whether the applicant is going to get a return on his investment but whether what is projected is likely to enable the applicant to pay the bills arising and meet his living expenses.
v. A plan is what it says it is: a projection of how it is anticipated things will work out with the possibility of making adjustments as the business gets under way. It is not a strait jacket.
vi. In doubtful cases an applicant’s previous experience will help inform the decision- maker whether a projected turnover is likely to be achieved, but such experience is not a pre-requisite.

Judges:

Blake J, P, Dawson UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 266 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463330

KA (Afghanistan) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 25 Jul 2012

Child asylum applicants will be treated as young people and their whole history will be considered.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP CA, Hooper, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1014, [2012] WLR(D) 230, [2013] 1 WLR 615, [2013] INLR 149, [2012] Imm AR 1054

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – KA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-Nov-2012
. .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463151

Lavarevic v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1997

Judges:

Hutchison LJ

Citations:

[1997] Imm AR 251

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 23-Jun-1999
Whether an asylum applicant had a well founded fear of persecution if he returned home, is always a question of fact and degree, and could not be made a question of law. Even so where there was a clear risk of repeated rather than single beatings if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.263185

CN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Jun 2007

Increased risk of claimant committing suicide if returned home.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 587

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Home Affairs Admn 31-Jul-2009
Assurances for Extradition
Extradition of the defendant was sought to the US to face allegations of hacking into defence computers there. He said this would infringe his article 3 rights, saying that he suffered Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Held: The application failed. US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.253492

Regina (Behre and Others) v Hillingdon London Borough Council: Admn 29 Aug 2003

Each claimant arrived as an unaccompanied child to claim asylum, and destitute. Assistance was provided under the 1989 Act until they were 18. They claimed a duty under the 200 Act to continue to assist them.
Held: Under the 2000 Act a duty was owed to a ‘former relevant child’ – a person who had been looked after by the local authority for 13 weeks before attaining 18 and was eligible at that time. ‘Looked after’ included having had accommodation provided. Exceptions were spelt out in the Regulations, and there was no need to add a gloss to the combined definition. It did no disservice to the definition to count the applicants as former relevant children, and the duty to assist applied to them.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 22-Sep-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003, [2003] EWHC 2075 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 2, Children Act 1989 19B(2) 23C(1), Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations) 2000 (200 No 2874)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hillingdon, Regina (on the Application of) v the Secretary of State for Education and Skills Admn 15-Mar-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children, Local Government

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.186340

Regina (on the Application of Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 25 Oct 2001

Judges:

Sir Christopher Bellamy QC

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 895

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Mar-2002
Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum . .
At First Instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.167250

Hari Dhima v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 8 Feb 2002

The appellate sought judicial review to challenge an order for his return to Albania. He said that he would be subject to persecution from communist sympathizers, and his life was at risk for a blood feud. Adjudicators had variously accepted and rejected both claims, but concluded that he could avail himself of internal flight. He challenged the applicability of the test in Horvath in human rights cases, which did not include a qualification to the right for protection where state aid may be available.
Held: The conventions should be read purposively. The difference is apparent only. The human rights test is affected by the availability of state protection, because that reduces the risk of harm. The burden was on the applicant to show that internal flight was not available. That test had been properly applied by the adjudicator. Review refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, And, Mr Justice Ouseley

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 80 (Admin), [2002] Imm AR 394

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65(1), European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Ahmed v Austria ECHR 17-Dec-1996
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and . .
Cited – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Mar-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.167593

Quijano v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 18 Dec 1996

The appellant asylum seeker claimed to have been persecuted as a member of his stepfather’s family, and thus of a particular social group, because members of a drug cartel had first persecuted the stepfather after he refused to co-operate with them and then also had made attacks on the appellant and other members of the family. The court asked what would constitute membership of a social group when looking at a well founded fear of prosecution as a member of such a group.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The persecution arose not because the appellant was a member of the stepfather’s family but because of his stepfather’s refusal to co-operate. The cartel’s decision to take punitive action against an individual related by marriage was fortuitous and incidental: ‘where the primary member of a family is not persecuted for a Convention reason, then the secondary members cannot be said to be persecuted for being members of the primary person’s family.’
Thorpe LJ: ‘Second I conclude that the persecution arises not because the appellant is a member of the Martinez family but because of his stepfather’s no doubt laudable refusal to do business with the cartel. The persecution has that plain origin and the cartel’s subsequent decision to take punitive action against an individual related by marriage is fortuitous and incidental as would have been a decision to take punitive action against the stepfather’s partners and their employees had the business been of that dimension.’
Morritt LJ: ‘But the fear of each member of the group is not derived from or a consequence of their relationship with each other or their membership of the group but because of their relationship, actual or as perceived by the drugs cartel, with the stepfather of the appellant. The stepfather was not persecuted for any Convention reason so that their individual relationship with him cannot cause a fear [for] a Convention reason either. In short the assumed fear of the appellant is not caused by his membership of a particular social group.’
Roch LJ: ‘The anomaly that would arise in the present case, were the arguments of the appellant’s counsel to be correct, that the appellant’s stepfather would not be entitled to claim political asylum under the Convention, whereas all other members of the family would be entitled to political asylum, is merely an indicator that this family is not ‘a social group’ liable to persecution because it is ‘a particular social group’. The other members of the family are being persecuted because they are related to the stepfather who has offended the drug cartel, who have decided to retaliate against the stepfather by persecuting him and members of his family. Who will constitute part of the family or social group is entirely the decision of the drug cartel. It may include those living in the stepfather’s house who are not related to him by blood or marriage. These considerations underline, in my opinion, the fact that in the circumstances of this case the Martinez family is not ‘a particular social group’.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Morritt LJ, Roch LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1244, 1997] Imm AR 227

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Rejected – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte De Melo and ex parte De Araujo Admn 19-Jul-1996
The court considered a fear of persecution as founding a claim for asylum where a family member attracts the adverse attention of the authorities, whether for non-Convention reasons or reasons unknown, and persecutory treatment is then directed to . .

Cited by:

Criticised – 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: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141112

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman: CA 11 Dec 1996

Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant.

Citations:

Times 24-Dec-1996, Gazette 29-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1183

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – In Re Saidur Rahman QBD 18-Jul-1996
A court hearing a deportation review should see all the evidence, including hearsay evidence if necessary. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – In Re Saidur Rahman QBD 18-Jul-1996
A court hearing a deportation review should see all the evidence, including hearsay evidence if necessary. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141051

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 not been paid.
Held: The appeals failed. The Regulations were explicit. If an application were not accompanied by the specified fee it was not validly made and, in ordinary language, an application which was not validly made could have no substantive effect: ‘There is no ambiguity in the words of regulation 37 of the 2011 Regulations. It provides in terms that if an application is not accompanied by the specified fee the application ‘is not validly made’. In ordinary language an application which is not validly made can have no substantive effect. There is nothing in the regulation to exclude section 3C from its scope.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 63, [2017] INLR 325, [2017] 3 All ER 824, [2017] 1 WLR 85, [2016] WLR(D) 664, [2017] Imm AR 716, UKSC 2015/0209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, WLRD, SC Summary

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3C, Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 3 23, Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At IAT – IA016582005 (Unreported) AIT 19-Sep-2007
. .
At CA – JH (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Feb-2009
. .
Cited – Suthendran v Immigration Appeal Tribunal HL 1977
The Appellant had been given leave under section 3(1)(b) of the 1971 Act to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for 12 months. Before it expired, he applied for his leave to be varied by way of extension under section 3(3)(a) of the Act. The . .
Cited – Iqbal and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 30-Jul-2015
Three applicants had sought an extension of their leave to remain pending the determination of an application to vary the period of leave. In each case, the applications had been faulty, either for non-payment of fees, or failure to provide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.572399

Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 20 Jul 2012

The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for housing assistance, the decision being based on her being subject to immigration control.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Longmore, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 982, [2013] PTSR 13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463075

K, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham City Council: Admn 21 Mar 2011

The court was asked whether the finding by the Immigration Judge in earlier proceedings as to the claimant’s age is binding on a subsequent decision maker concerned with the assessment of the claimant’s age, such as the local authority, the defendant in these proceedings.

Judges:

Robert Owen QC

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1559 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462985

Alam and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 13 Jul 2012

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP CA, Moore-Bick, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 960

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
Cited – Mandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462894

Regina (Mapah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 25 Feb 2003

The claimant challenged rules preventing him recording his interview when applying for asylum.
Held: The rule preventing such recordings was not improper. To allow such private recordings might give rise to much satellite litigation, and the applicant was given full opportunity to make and keep notes of the interviews.

Judges:

Pitchford J

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-2003, Gazette 01-May-2003, [2003] EWHC 306 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Dirshe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Apr-2005
The asylum claimant had sought to be allowed to record his interview with the immigration officer, but this had been refused.
Held: Review was granted. Whilst in the majority of cases a recording should be unnecessary, since the Mapah case, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.179813

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed: CA 13 Nov 1996

The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing expeditons’ by those seeking a judicial review.
Woolf LJ MR said: ‘on an application for judicial review there is usually no [disclosure] because [disclosure] should be unnecessary because it is the obligation of the [defendant] public body in its evidence to make fresh disclosure to the court of the decision-making process.’

Judges:

Woolf LJ MR

Citations:

Times 18-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 946, [1998] 1 WLR 763, [1997] INLR 137, [1997] 1 All ER 228, [1997] COD 205

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 44(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
Cited – Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Cited – Al-Sweady and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Defence Admn 2-Oct-2009
The claimant’s son had died whilst in the custody of the British Armed Forces in Iraq. His uncle now claimed that his human rights had been infringed. The case ‘raised a fundamental issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR because if the . .
Cited – Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Constitutional, Natural Justice, Judicial Review

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140813

Stadt Duisburg (Maintenance of acquired rights after naturalization) (Judgment): ECJ 21 Oct 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 – Article 7, first paragraph – Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker belonging to the regular employment market of a Member State – Naturalization of the member of the family concerned in the host Member State – Maintenance of the right of residence – Acquired rights

Citations:

C-720/19, [2020] EUECJ C-720/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:847

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.660622

Binaku (S 11 TCEA; S 117C NIAA; Para 399D): UTIAC 27 Jan 2021

The procedural issue: appeals under section 11 of the TCEA 2007
(1) The appellate regime established by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended, is concerned with outcomes comprising the determination of available grounds of appeal;
(2) A party who has achieved the exact outcome(s) sought by way of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal being allowed on all available grounds relied on (in respect of an individual) or because it has been dismissed on all grounds (in respect of the Secretary of State) cannot appeal to the Upper Tribunal under section 11(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 against particular findings and/or reasons stated by the judge;
(3) Devani [2020] EWCA Civ 612; [2020] 1 WLR 2613 represents binding authority from the Court of Appeal to this effect.
The substantive issue: the relationship between Part 5A of the NIAA 2002 and the Immigration Rules
(4) By virtue of section 117A(1) of the 2002 Act, a tribunal is bound to apply the provisions of primary legislation, as set out in sections 117B and 117C, when determining an appeal concerning Article 8.
(5) In cases concerning the deportation of foreign criminals (as defined), it is clear from section 117A(2)(b) of the 2002 Act that the core legislative provisions are those set out in section 117C. It is now well-established that these provisions provide a structured approach to the application of Article 8 which will produce in all cases a final result compatible with protected rights.
(6) It is the structured approach set out in section 117C of the 2002 Act which governs the task to be undertaken by the tribunal, not the provisions of the Rules.
(7) A foreign criminal who has re-entered the United Kingdom in breach of an extant deportation order is subject to the same deportation regime as those who have yet to be removed or who have been removed and are seeking a revocation of a deportation order from abroad. The phrases ‘cases concerning the deportation of foreign criminals’ in section 117A(2) and ‘a decision to deport a foreign criminal’ in section 117C(7) are to be interpreted accordingly.
(8) Paragraph 399D of the Rules has no relevance to the application of the statutory criteria set out in section 117C(4), (5) and (6);
(9) It follows that the structured approach to be undertaken by a tribunal considering an Article 8 appeal in the context of deportation begins and ends with Part 5A of the 2002 Act.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 34 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.660041

SYR (PTA; Electronic Materials) Iraq: UTIAC 24 Feb 2021

As paper is increasingly replaced by electronic forms of communication, it is particularly important that judges engaged in the permission to appeal process, whether at First-tier or Upper Tribunal level, satisfy themselves that they have the requisite materials before them in order to make a proper decision on permission. Accordingly, a judge should not grant permission to appeal on the basis that the requisite documentation is not before him or her.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 64 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.660047

Rawofi (Age Assessment – Standard of Proof) Afghanistan: UTIAC 20 Jun 2012

UTIAC Where age is disputed in the context of an asylum appeal (in contrast to age assessment in judicial review proceedings), the burden is on the appellant and the standard of proof is as laid down in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958 and R (Karanakaran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11.

Judges:

McFarlane LJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 197 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461939

Kunnel (Length of Academic Year) India: UTIAC 12 Jun 2012

UTIAC The First-tier Tribunal Judge had not erred in law in finding that attendance at a course over a period of three months was not a course of study ‘of at least one academic year in duration’ under paragraph 245 HD (g) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395).

Judges:

McFarlane LJ, Warr UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 195 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461938

Brown, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 28 May 2012

The claimant, a citizen of Jamaica, came to the UK in 2010 on a visitor’s visa with leave to remain for one month. He then applied for asylum on the ground that he is a Jamaican homosexual and feared persecution if returned to Jamaica. He was detained under section 62 of the Act pending a decision on his removal. The detention power was exercised under the so-called Detained Non Suspensive Appeals process. He complained that his case was not suitable for the DNSA process and his detention was unlawful. The complaint was rejected and he issued a claim for judicial review, seeking declarations that the decision to include Jamaica in the list of states designated under section 94(4) and the respondent’s detention were both unlawful. His claim for asylum was rejected, but not certifying it as clearly unfounded. He was free to pursue an in-country appeal, and the Tribunal upheld his claim to be a homosexual and at real risk of persecution if he were returned to Jamaica.
Held: The Court dismissed the appellant’s claim for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to include, and subsequently retain, Jamaica among the states designated in section 94(4) of the 2002 Act as generally not presenting any serious risk of persecution to those entitled to reside within them. By the same order the Deputy Judge dismissed the appellant’s claim for damages for false imprisonment in respect of the period during which he was detained pending the determination of his claim for asylum.

Judges:

Nicholas Paine QC DHCJ

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1660 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(4)

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – JB (Jamaica), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2013
The claimant was to be removed and returned to Jamaica, but claimed that as a homosexual he would be persecuted. He now challenged the inclusion of Jamaica within the last of safe countries.
Held: (Moore-Bick LJ dissenting) The appeal . .
At First Instance – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461872

Zatuliveter v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 29 Sep 2011

SIAC Deportation – The Hearing of An Application By The Appellant – Refused – the Court or Commission can make findings of primary facts from which it can decide the principal issue in controversy – recusal of tribunal member

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2011] UKSIAC 103/2010)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Lord Carlile and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 16-Mar-2012
The claimant had invited an Iranian dissident to speak in Parliament, and now challenged the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse her a visa on the basis that her exclusion was not conducive to the public good. She was a member of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461849

Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 6 Feb 2012

Application for bail.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2012] UKSIAC B1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
At ECHR – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .

Cited by:

SIAC Bail Application – Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2012
(Press Release) Diplomatic assurances will protect Abu Qatada from torture but he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him. . .
Bail Application – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 28-May-2012
SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his . .
SIAC Bail application – Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
SIAC Bail Application – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
SIAC Bail Application – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461825

Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 28 May 2012

SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his deportation at the Eropean Court of Human Rights, he now applied for bail.
Held: The request for bail was rejected.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2012] UKSIAC 15/2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
At ECHR – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
ECHR PR – Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2012
(Press Release) Diplomatic assurances will protect Abu Qatada from torture but he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him. . .
Bail Application – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 6-Feb-2012
Application for bail. . .

Cited by:

SIAC – Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
SIAC – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
SIAC Baill – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461829

J1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 15 Apr 2011

Deportation – Substantive (National Security) – Dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKSIAC 98/2010)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – J1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 11-Jul-2011
Deportation – Substantive (Safety On Return) – Dismissed . .
At SIAC – J1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The applicant said that his proposed deportation to Ethiopia would infringe his article 3 rights, and in particular whether SIAC was entitled to conclude that assurances given by the Ethiopian Government were a satisfactory safeguard, even though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461843

J1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 11 Jul 2011

Deportation – Substantive (Safety On Return) – Dismissed

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2011] UKSIAC 98/2010)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – J1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 15-Apr-2011
Deportation – Substantive (National Security) – Dismissed . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – J1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The applicant said that his proposed deportation to Ethiopia would infringe his article 3 rights, and in particular whether SIAC was entitled to conclude that assurances given by the Ethiopian Government were a satisfactory safeguard, even though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461845

Syed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 7 Sep 2011

The court considered appeals where relevant information had come to light too late within proceedings to be taken account of save on appeal.

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P, Thomas, Elias LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1059

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.443632

MS (Ivory Coast) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 22 Feb 2007

At the time when her asylum application was heard, there was also outstanding an application for contact with her children. The applicant said that to decide to order her removal before that decision would violate her article 8 rights. The respondent argued that it had undertaken not to give any removal directions before that hearing.
Held: The tribunal should have decided on the facts as they were whether a removal would interfere with her rights. It did not have the power to accept an undertaking from the respondent. The tribunal could have granted discretionary leave to remain for a short period.

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales Lord Justice Thomas Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 133, Times 27-Mar-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.249911

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Regina (on the Application of) AA (Afghanistan): CA 22 Nov 2006

The claimant had sought asylum. He said that the respondent’s delay in processing his claim had caused him prejudice and had successfully obtained a review of the decision to remove him to Austria to have his claim decided there.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal succeded: ‘while the secretary of state’s delay was deplorable and unexplained the court could not quash the removal directions in order to punish or discipline the Home Office.’

Judges:

Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Gage

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1550, Times 29-Nov-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.246728