Category: Immigration

Tum, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Dari v Same: CA 24 May 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 788, 2004 CMCR 1131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Community and Republic of Turkey Association Agreement, Brussels additional Protocol of November 23 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Temiz, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Oct-2006
The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to give him permission to stay in the United Kingdom. As a Turkish national he had absconded after being ordered to be removed, and had since gone into business here.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.198331

European Roma Rights Centre and 6 others v Tthe Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, The Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 8 Oct 2002

There is an ‘administrative, financial and indeed social burden borne as a result of failed asylum seekers’.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton The Honourable Justice Burton <

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1989 (Admin), [2003] ACD 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 1 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
At First Instance – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.177441

Regina v Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte and Similar: CA 11 Oct 1996

The Court of Appeal could only deal with an appeal on points of law arising from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, it could only allow an appeal on points of law in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction, either because the point was raised in the grounds or because it was an obvious point of law

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 706, [1998] QB 929

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hysi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Jun-2005
The claimant appealed an order to be returned to Kosovo.
Held: As the son of a gypsy mother and and an Albanian father. As such, he would face persecution if returned if his mixed race parentage became known. If order to return he would be . .
Cited – AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Jan-2007
The asylum claimant had said that he was a minor when his case was first considered, but to the IAT said that at the time of that hearing any error was no longer material since he had now attained 18.
Held: A court should be very reluctant to . .
Cited – HB v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed against the decision to deport him made on the basis of hs propensity to criminality. The court was asked whether a propensity to commit robberies was a sufficiently serious threat to society to allow expulsion. However it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.140573

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 provided care where no other was available. The need for rehousing here arose in part from the applicant’s disabilities, and that was enough. The duty was not displaced because the need arose in large part from simple destitution for which the state provided other resources. Assistance in this context included the provision of housing, and in making the assessment the authority had under the 2000 regulations to ignore the other support given to asylum seekers.

Judges:

Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

Times 08-May-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] EWHC 735 (Admin), (2002) 5 CCLR 486, [2002] ACD 78

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115, Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 704) 6(3) 23(1) 23(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 by:

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

Housing, Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.170266

Kagema v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 15 Aug 1996

The word ‘persecution’ must be given its ordinary and natural meaning when considering an application for asylum based on a fear of persecution.
Aldous LJ said: ‘Mr Ashford-Thom, who appeared for the Secretary of State, submitted that the word ‘persecution’ was an ordinary English word and it was for the special adjudicator to decide whether the facts as found amounted to persecution for a Convention reason. The fact that a court might, or would have, come to a different conclusion did not mean that the special adjudicator had erred in law. That only arose if this court concluded that the special adjudicator’s conclusion was unreasonable, in the sense that it was a decision that no reasonable adjudicator could come to.
That I believe to be correct.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 582, 1997 Imm AR 137

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: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.140449

MWA, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: Admn 21 Dec 2011

Application for judicial review of the decisions of Birmingham City Council, the second defendant, determining him to be over 18 years old on the material dates for the purposes of the Children Act 1989.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3488 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration, Children

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459738

Contractor (Cas – Tier 4) India: UTIAC 23 May 2012

UTIAC 1) UKBA’s announcement in March 2011 of changes to the Immigration Rules which came into force on 21 April 2011 means that in general those who stood to be affected by those changes had adequate time to take appropriate action and hence that in general no Patel fairness issues arise.
2) This applies to the CAS-related requirement set out at para 116(da) that a new course had to be at an A-rated college and also to the CAS-related requirement set out at para 118(c)(iii) for an applicant starting a new course at below degree level to achieve Level B1 in the English Language Test in all four components.

Judges:

Coulson J, Storey, Mckee UTJJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 168 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459659

AK (Article 15(C)) Afghanistan CG: UTIAC 18 May 2012

UTIAC A. Law etc:
(i) The Tribunal continues to regard as correct the summary of legal principles governing Article 15(c) of the Refugee Qualification Directive as set out in HM and others (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG [2010] UKUT 331 (IAC) and more recently in AMM and Others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia CG [2011] UKUT 00445 (IAC) and MK (documents – relocation) Iraq CG [2012] UKUT 00126 (IAC).
(ii) The need, when dealing with asylum-related claims based wholly or significantly on risks arising from situations of armed conflict and indiscriminate violence, to assess whether Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive is engaged, should not lead to judicial or other decision-makers going straight to Article 15(c). The normal course should be to deal with the issue of refugee eligibility, subsidiary (humanitarian) protection eligibility and Article 3 ECHR in that order.
(iii) One relevant factor when deciding what weight to attach to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that sets out findings on general country condition in asylum-related cases, will be the extent to which the Court had before it comprehensive COI (Country of Origin Information). However, even if there is a recent such ECtHR judgement based on comprehensive COI, the Tribunal is not bound to reach the same findings: see AMM, para 115.
(iv) There may be a useful role in country guidance cases for reports by COI (Country of Origin) analysts/consultants, subject to such reports adhering to certain basic standards. Such a role is distinct from that a country expert.
B. Country conditions
(i) This decision replaces GS (Article 15(c): indiscriminate violence) Afghanistan CG [2009] UKAIT 00044 as current country guidance on the applicability of Article 15(c) to the on-going armed conflict in Afghanistan. The country guidance given in AA (unattended children) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 00016 (IAC), insofar as it relates to unattended children, remains unaffected by this decision.
(ii) Despite a rise in the number of civilian deaths and casualties and (particularly in the 2010-2011 period) an expansion of the geographical scope of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, the level of indiscriminate violence in that country taken as a whole is not at such a high level as to mean that, within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, a civilian, solely by being present in the country, faces a real risk which threatens his life or person.
(iii) Nor is the level of indiscriminate violence, even in the provinces worst affected by the violence (which may now be taken to include Ghazni but not to include Kabul), at such a level.
(iv) Whilst when assessing a claim in the context of Article 15(c) in which the respondent asserts that Kabul city would be a viable internal relocation alternative, it is necessary to take into account (both in assessing ‘safety’ and reasonableness’) not only the level of violence in that city but also the difficulties experienced by that city’s poor and also the many Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) living there, these considerations will not in general make return to Kabul unsafe or unreasonable.
(v) Nevertheless, this position is qualified (both in relation to Kabul and other potential places of internal relocation) for certain categories of women. The purport of the current Home Office OGN on Afghanistan is that whilst women with a male support network may be able to relocate internally, ‘. . it would be unreasonable to expect lone women and female heads of household to relocate internally’ (February 2012 OGN, 3.10.8) and the Tribunal sees no basis for taking a different view.

Judges:

Storey, Allen, Dawson UTJJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 163 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459658

Sawmynaden (Family Visitors – Considerations) Mauritius: UTIAC 16 Apr 2012

UTIAC In visit visa cases:
(i) There is no restriction on the number of visits a person may make to the UK, nor any requirement that a specified time must elapse between successive visits.
(ii) The periods of time spent in the United Kingdom and the country of residence will always be important.
(iii) Both the expressed purpose of the visit and what the appellant has done in the past and intends to do in the future is material, together with the length of time that has elapsed since previous visits. In cases of this type, the appellant will be visiting a relative, often a parent visiting a son or daughter, often a son or daughter visiting a parent. In the case of a parent visiting a son or daughter, the parent will often fully participate in helping in the house, providing child care. In the case of a son or daughter visiting a parent, the adult child will often assist in care arrangements. None of these activities, for that reason alone, will take the individual outside the definition of a genuine visitor.
(iv) The links that the appellant retains with her country of residence will be a material consideration. The presence of other family members will be a material consideration.
(v) The Tribunal is required to ascertain what is the reality of the arrangement entered into between the appellant and the host in the United Kingdom. Is the reality that the appellant is resident in the United Kingdom and intends to be for the foreseeable future?
(vi) The issue may be approached by considering whether the reality is that the appellant is now no more than a visitor to her country of residence as the purpose of the return home is confined to using his or her presence there solely as the means of gaining re-admission to the United Kingdom.
(vii) This does not preclude the appellant from remaining in the country of residence for the least amount of time sufficient to maintain her status as a genuine visitor.
(viii) Family emergencies, whilst likely to result in a longer visit than the established pattern, should not be regarded as taking up residence without adequate supporting evidence to that effect. Thus, the pregnancy of a daughter or daughter-in-law or the aftermath of the birth might explain a more-protracted stay (within the 6-month duration of a single permitted visit); so, too, a serious medical condition.
(ix) There may be comparisons with the person who owns homes in two different countries. Is he resident in both or a visitor to one of them?

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 161 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459656

Singh (Paragraph 320 (7A) – Is151A Forms – Proof) India: UTIAC 25 Apr 2012

UTIAC (1) In an appeal arising from the refusal of an application under paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, the burden of proof is upon the respondent to establish on a balance of probabilities that the requirements of that paragraph are made out. Consequently, where the refusal concerns the alleged service of Forms IS151A, IS151A Part 2 or IS151B upon an appellant, the respondent must prove service of the particular form(s). That evidence may comprise copies of the forms served, records of service made by immigration officers or a statement by the person who served the form(s). A bare assertion by an Entry Clearance Officer is unlikely to be sufficient.
(2) Form IS151A does not require the recipient ‘to leave the United Kingdom.’ Such a requirement is made, for example, by Form IS151B. Where a subsequent refusal of an application alleges that the applicant has made a false statement as to whether he or she has been required to leave the United Kingdom in the past, it is, therefore, very important for the Tribunal to know exactly which forms have been served.

Judges:

Lane UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 162 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459657

Aksoy, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department: Admn 26 May 2006

Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to refuse the claimant’s application for leave to remain in this country under the Turkish EC Association Agreement

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1487 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.376249

MD (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 27 Apr 2007

The court considered the applicable procedures in two appeals against decisions of single immigration judges of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal upon a reconsideration, as part of the streamlined asylum appeal system enacted by the 2004 Act.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Laws LJ, Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 532

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants et cetera) Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.253253

DK (Serbia) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2006

The court considered and gave guidance on the re-consideration of cases by the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Tribunal after the 2004 Act, particularly as to the scope where there had been a possible error in law, and as to the procedures adopted.
Held: In the absence of an error of law, a decision should be revisited only for new evidence or other material, or exceptional circumstances. As to the procedures, these must reflect the particular situation, but the overriding consideration was whether the reconsideration been conducted fairly.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Longmore LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1747, Times 10-Jan-2007, [2007] 2 All ER 483, [2008] 1 WLR 1246

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – DM v Secretary of State for the Home Department SCS 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had applied for asylum saying that she was Zimbabwean and had fled after her husband, a member of the opposition had been arrested and she had been threatened with being ‘disappeared.’ The tribunal had rejected her claim as false, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.247483

AJ (Liberia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 15 Dec 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1736

Links:

Bailii

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: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.247400

Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Mar 2005

The court considered the proper approach to expert evidence when viewed alongside other evidence: Wilson J said ‘It seems to me to be axiomatic that a fact-finder must not reach his or her conclusion before surveying all the evidence relevant thereto . . Mr Tam, for the Secretary of State, argues that decisions as to the credibility of an account are to be taken by the judicial fact-finder and that, in their reports, experts, whether in relation to medical matters or to in-country circumstances, cannot usurp the fact-finder’s function in assessing credibility. I agree. What, however, they can offer, is a factual context in which it may be necessary for the fact-finder to survey the allegations placed before him; and such context may prove a crucial aid to the decision whether to not to accept the truth of them. What the fact-finder does at his peril is to reach a conclusion by reference only to the appellant’s evidence and then, if it be negative, to ask whether the conclusion should be shifted by the expert evidence.’

Judges:

Wilson J, Ward and Buxton LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 367

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jakto Transport Ltd. v Derek Hall CA 9-Nov-2005
The claimant alleged injury from use of a torque wrench, and succeeded. The employer appealed.
Held: Though the appeal failed, the judge should have been careful not to consider the expert’s evidence separately, and not first making . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.224247

AK (Democratic Party) Albania: IAT 20 Dec 2002

Appeal against the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing her appeal against the refusal of the Secretary of State to grant her asylum and to grant her claim under the Human Rights Act, on behalf of herself, her husband and her two children.

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 05822

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.221947

Regina on the Application of Pharis v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 May 2004

The claimant appealed refusal of judicial review of the respondent’s decision to remove him to Nigeria.
Held: The appeal was refused. The court said that in future the lodging of a notice of appeal should automatically stay any process of removal pending the appeal. This informal practice had been subject of considerable abuse, with spurious appeals.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 654, Times 27-May-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 2590, [2004] 3 All ER 310

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (Removal Directions) Regulations 2000 4(1), Civil Procedure Rules, Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.197951

Regina (Majead) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Secretary of State for the Home Department Interested Party: CA 1 Apr 2003

The applicant had arrived in England to apply for asylum but had then been moved to Scotland. A decision of the adjudication officer in Scotland had been heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal sitting in London. The claimant sought a High Court review of that decision in London.
Held: The review could only be conducted by the Court of Session. The considerations were not those of a private action as to forum conveniens, but had constitutional implications. Though some residual jurisdiction lay in London, this was not an exceptional case and was to be heard in Scotland. Parliament had made clear that the courts of Scotland should have ultimate responsibility in relation to appeals to the IAT from adjudicators in Scotland. Without deciding the point Brooke LJ noted that in a ‘real emergency’ the High Court might exercise jurisdiction over IAT decisions relating to appeals from adjudicators in Scotland but that would have to be a ‘very exceptional case’.

Judges:

Brooke, Hale, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 615, Gazette 12-Jun-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Shah) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Secretary of State for the Home Department, interested party CA 22-Nov-2004
The applicant had fled Pakistan to claim asylum. His application for judicial review of the decision to reject his request for asylum failed. It had been decided in Scotland. He appealed.
Held: It was not open to the Secretary of State to . .
Cited – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Jurisdiction, Immigration, Constitutional

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.181842

Subdelegacion Del Gobierno En Toledo (Consequences Deurez Zaizoune) (Judgment): ECJ 8 Oct 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of ??freedom, security and justice – Directive 2008/115 / EC – Common standards and procedures for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals – Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraph 1 – Illegal stay – National regulations providing for the imposition, depending on the circumstances, either of a fine or of expulsion – Consequences of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Zaizoune (C-38/14, EU: C: 2015: 260 ) – National legislation more favorable for the person concerned – Direct effect of directives – Limits

Citations:

C-568/19, [2020] EUECJ C-568/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020 :807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.660623

Kastrati And Others (Right of Asylum): ECJ 12 Jan 2012

ECJ Right of asylum – Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application – Entry by means of a Schengen visa – Lodging of an asylum application in a Member State which did not issue the Schengen visa – Application for a residence permit in the State of residence – Withdrawal of the asylum application – Admission of the asylum seeker by the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application

Judges:

Trstnjak AG

Citations:

C-620/10, [2012] EUECJ C-620/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Kastrati And Others (Right of Asylum) ECJ 3-May-2012
ECJ Dublin system – Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 – Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application – Third-country nationals in possession of a valid visa issued by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.459562

Goremsandu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1996

The applicant had been convicted of incest with his daughter, and served with a deportation notice on release from prison.
Held: Removal on ‘public policy’ grounds may be a justified response to sufficiently serious criminal conduct, if combined with evidence of a propensity to reoffend, and in particularly serious cases even without it. It was open to the Secretary of State to decide that certain offences were so serious, in the sense of being sufficiently repugnant to the generally accepted standards of morality that the continued presence of the individual in the community was unacceptable, irrespective of a propensity to commit further offences, that there was a proper public interest served by the deportation.
Stuart-Smith LJ contrasted the exercise of judicial and executive discretions: ‘In my judgment, it is open to the Secretary of State to decide that some offences are so serious, in the sense that they are sufficiently repugnant to the generally accepted standards of morality, that the continued presence in the community is unacceptable, irrespective of a propensity to commit further offences of a similar character. If that is so, the only question that arises is whether a decision of the Secretary of State and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal can be attacked on the grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

[1996] Imm AR 250

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – B v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 18-May-2000
The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.424098

IM (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 May 2007

The applicant arrived illegally from Turkey and claimed asylum. She said that she had been involved in demonstrating on Kurdish issues, and had been interrogated. On failure of that claim she was ordered to be removed. She appealed saying that the AIT’s conclusion as to the risks to her had been based on no evidence at all.
Held: The appeal failed. The hearing had been effectively a re-determination, and the claimant had not given evidence to counter the conclusion reached.

Judges:

Buxton LJ. Lawrnce Collins LJ, Sir Paul Kennedy

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.253263

Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2004

The asylum applicant had formerly been a police officer in Nepal. He said that if returned he would be subject to retribution from terrorists.
Held: The IAT had erred in failing to overturn the flawed adjudicator’s decision. Paramilitary police had been murdered recently in Nepal, and there was a lack of protection for them. There was no evidence that his retirement would leave him free from such a threat. Attempts by Nepalese army and police were ineffective to protect the applicant and his family. He had been singled out for his anti-terrorist police activities. The case ws remitted to be heard before a different tribunal.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

Times 04-Jan-2005, [2004] EWCA Civ 1863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.221715

Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia: CA 23 Feb 1996

A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were overstaying.

Citations:

Independent 23-Feb-1996, Gazette 20-Mar-1996, Times 27-Feb-1996, (1996) 28 HLR 616

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 63 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia QBD 11-Oct-1995
An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia QBD 11-Oct-1995
An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant. . .
Cited – London Borough of Barnet v Ismail and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
The court considered the entitlement to housing support of nationals of other EEA states receiving Income Support here despite their being still subject to immigration control.
Held: Such EEA nationals were eligible for housing benefit. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.88300

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Vitale: CA 26 Jan 1996

The appellant, who was an Italian citizen, claimed that Article 8(a) conferred an unlimited right to reside in the United Kingdom.
Held: The court rejected that argument. Staughton LJ said that it was clear that Article 8(a) could not be taken to have replaced Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366: ‘Each of these directives was a measure adopted to give effect to the Treaty, and each of them contained the limitation on the right of residence that the visiting national should not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state. The right of residence conferred by art 8a is, therefore, in our view, still subject to that limitation. As for the submission that all nationals now have a general right of residence by virtue of art 8a, this seems to us to ignore the plain words that the art 8a right of residence is made subject to the limitations and conditions contained in measures such as these directives. In our judgment, there is at the moment no unqualified right of residence of the kind claimed by the appellant.’ Freedom of movement for workers in EU depended on intention to work- economic.

Judges:

Staughton LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-1996, [1996] All ER (EC) 461

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Vitale; Regina v Same Ex Parte Do Amaral QBD 18-Apr-1995
A European Union citizen’s right to stay in UK is not unqualified, he must expect to have to seek or find work. The decision of the Home Secretary could be judicially reviewed and ‘in the course of his appeal before the Social Security Appeal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 3-May-2006
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen.
Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.87918

Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Thavathevathasan: CA 1994

The court discussed the task of a Special Adjudicator: ‘Clearly the Special Adjudicator is not bound by the Home Secretary’s certificate. In other words, he does not merely wield a rubber stamp. He must consider whether, on the material before the Home Secretary, and on any other material before him (if it is proper for him to admit any) the conclusion which the Home Secretary reached is justified. The adjudicator, in other words, is bound to consider the issue which he has to determine on its merits.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

[1994] Imm AR 249

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe HL 15-Feb-1996
Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Held: Adjudicators are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.219246

Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Mehmet Colak: CA 6 Jul 1993

The Home Office was entitled to return refugees to the country in which they had first stopped if it was a Community State.

Citations:

Times 06-Jul-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Dept Ex Mehmet Colak CA 19-Jan-1994
Return to intermediate country by refugee not challengeable under art 8a. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Dept Ex Mehmet Colak CA 19-Jan-1994
Return to intermediate country by refugee not challengeable under art 8a. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration, European

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87989

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi and Another: CA 21 Apr 1994

The Home Secretary has no duty to show the factual evidence he had relied upon as to the safety of a deportee’s destination country.
The Home Secretary need not state all information on which his certificate was based. The court recognised the need for speed decisions.

Judges:

Steyn LJ

Citations:

Independent 21-Apr-1994, Times 25-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Geneva Convention 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi, Same v Same, ex parte Gawe QBD 24-Feb-1994
The Secretary of State must state all the facts on which his opinion had based when ordering the deportation of an Asylum-seeker as to the safety of the destination country. ‘In a situation in which it is to be expected that most or all of the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi HL 1987
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe HL 15-Feb-1996
Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Held: Adjudicators are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87823

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Marchon: CA 23 Feb 1993

It was permissible for the Home Secretary to order the deportation of a convicted drug trafficker for the public good, even though he was an EC national, and though there was nothing to suggest any propensity to commit any further offences. It was not necessary to show that the offence was so notorious as to require special treatment. The offence here was sufficiently serious to justify such an action.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993, [1993] Imm AR 384

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – B v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 18-May-2000
The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration, European

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87877

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal: CA 27 Oct 1993

Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat to the deportee’s safety, but his decision was only to be challenged if it was irrational or perverse or unlawful. The court was entitled to look at the assessment made of the risks to the applicant should he be deported in order to determine whether the rejection of the asylum claim was Wednesbury unreasonable. Neill LJ concluded that ‘That the court has power to examine the grounds on which a deportation order is made even where the interests of national security are relied upon, though in practice the the court’s power of scrutiny may be limited.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Neill LJ

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1993, Independent 10-Nov-1993, Times 27-Oct-1993, [1995] 1 All ER 658

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ex parte Chahal QBD 5-Apr-1993
The Home Secretary need not consider any risk of torture as an issue separate from that of persecution, when considering making an order for deportation. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Manelfi Admn 25-Oct-1996
The applicant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to employ him to work at GCHQ, which had a policy not to employ anyone with non-British parents save exceptionally. The claimant said this was racially discriminatory.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87840

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Dept Ex Mehmet Colak: CA 19 Jan 1994

Return to intermediate country by refugee not challengeable under art 8a.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Mehmet Colak CA 6-Jul-1993
The Home Office was entitled to return refugees to the country in which they had first stopped if it was a Community State. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Mehmet Colak CA 6-Jul-1993
The Home Office was entitled to return refugees to the country in which they had first stopped if it was a Community State. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87946

Regina v Ofori, Regina v Tackie: CA 17 Nov 1993

Court has power to grant bail or to release a person, pending their appeal despite the existence of a deportation order.

Citations:

Times 17-Nov-1993, Gazette 08-Dec-1993, (1994) 99 Cr App R 223

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Okolie CACD 16-Jun-2000
Evidence is always required on matters relating to foreign law, and such evidence given in person unless it was agreed or no issue was taken. Untranslated reports of stolen vehicles prepared by employees of the person who claimed to have been the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Immigration

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87485

O, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Oct 2019

Claim for judicial review of what is alleged by the Claimant to be the Defendant’s historic and continuing unlawful failure to provide suitable accommodation to her and to her two young children.

Judges:

Deputy Judge Mathew Gullick

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2734 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Housing

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.642714

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 respondent refused the application; in consequence, the Appellant appealed against the decision relying upon section 14(1) of the 1971 Act: ‘Subject to the provision of this part of the Act, a person who has a limited leave under this Act to enter or remain in the United Kingdom may appeal to an adjudicator against variation of the leave (whether as regards duration or conditions), or against any refusal to vary it;’ The Courts were troubled as to whether or not the Appellant had a right of appeal to the adjudicator under section 14.
Held: (Majority) Section 14(1) was not to be read as giving a right of appeal to a person whose limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom had expired at the time of applying for a variation, given the phrase ‘a person who has a limited leave’. The majority were not prepared to read that phraseology as including persons who had previously had leave to remain.
Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘In my opinion this provision is not applicable to a limited leave which has expired and no longer has any operation: the Secretary of State has no powers in relation to such a former limited leave. He has in such a case a power to give de novo a leave to remain, and in the case of an application to vary an expired limited leave by extension he will no doubt treat the application as an application for the grant of leave to remain: but I observe that there is no right of appeal from a refusal to grant such a leave to remain . .’

Judges:

Lord Russell of Killowen

Citations:

[1977] AC 359, [1977] Imm AR 44, [1976] 3 All ER 611, [1976] UKHL 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Disapproved – In re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
Cited – Halil and Another v Davidson HL 3-Jul-1980
The appellants, Turkish Cypriots, arrived on visitor permits, but after extensions, were given notice that their leave to stay would come to an end.
Held: The appeal failed. The notice given was in the form disapproved in Suthendram, but the . .
Cited – 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.

Litigation Practice, Immigration

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.182918

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Balbo B and C Auto Transporti Internazionali: Admn 22 Mar 2001

Where a notice of liability was served on a transport operator with regard to his responsibility for transporting illegal immigrants into the country, and he wished to challenge it, the proper approach was to allow the notice to expire, and then to defend any proceedings brought. Given that way of dealing with it, it was not appropriate to challenge the notice itself by way of judicial review. The form of notice issued after review did not refer to the Secretary of State’s need to pursue his remedy through the courts. This was unfortunate, but if it were true, it would make him judge and jury in his own cause.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-2001, Times 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 195, [2001] 1 WLR 1556

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration, Transport

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88650

Regina v Eyck; R v Hadakoglu: CACD 8 Feb 2000

The offence of being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for illegal entry of aliens into the United Kingdom was committed if the constituents of the offence were shown. That did not necessitate the actual bringing of someone into the UK. Here the defendant had driven a van onto a ferry bound for Dover when illegal immigrants were discovered inside. The offence was complete.

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-2000

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 25 (1) (a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85251

R v Eyck; R v Hadakoglu: CACD 3 Feb 2000

The offence of being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for illegal entry of aliens into the United Kingdom was committed if the constituents of the offence were shown. That did not necessitate the actual bringing of someone into the UK. Here the defendant had driven a van onto a ferry bound for Dover when illegal immigrants were discovered inside. The offence was complete.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-2000

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 25 (1) (a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85252

HN v Minister For Justice, Equality And Law Reform: ECJ 7 Nov 2013

EcJ Opinion – Common European asylum system – Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for qualification for refugee status or subsidiary protection status – Directive 2005/85/EC – Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status – National procedural rule making the consideration of an application for subsidiary protection subject to the prior refusal of an application for refugee status – Whether permissible – Respect for the right to good administration – Expedition and impartiality of the examination procedure

Judges:

Bot AG

Citations:

C-604/12, [2013] EUECJ C-604/12, [2014] EUECJ C-604/12

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/83/EC, Directive 2005/85/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.517559

T, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Feb 2010

The applicants were two unaccompanied minors from Eritrea who had been taken from their homes at 4am for removal that morning from the UK in the case of T for removal at 7.30am and in the case of M at 9.30am or thereabouts. M managed to prevent her removal taking place but she suffered some physical injury when attempts were made to remove her but her legal representative persuaded the UKBA to cancel removal directions. T was not so fortunate and having been removed from the United Kingdom, she then arrived in Italy where she contacted her solicitors who had represented her explaining to them that whilst on the street in Bergemo, she had met a male stranger with whom she was living. She appeared to be in some distress although it was not suggested that she had been molested. They sought judicial review.
Held: It was disturbing that M removed in circumstances in which it was impossible for her to contact her lawyers. The request for judicial review succeeded, and the removal orders rescinded.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 435 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2010
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.402590

HB (Ethiopia) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Dec 2006

The court considered the Human Rights effect of a delay in removal of a failed asylum seeker. Buxton LJ said of the claim that the delay led to a separate reason for not ordering the claimants’ return: ‘that enterprise failed, first because the effect in law of such delay is already well-settled by authority binding on this court; and second because all of the four cases before us fail on grounds not related to delay’.

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1713, [2007] Imm AR 396, [2007] INLR 150

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.247350

Bajracharya, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 Feb 2018

Whether the appellant should be granted permission to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Upper Tribunal declined to give such permission, but he appeals against that decision.

Judges:

Lord Justice Newey

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 277

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.605306

Hiri v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Feb 2014

The Claimant applied for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision to refuse his application for naturalisation as a British citizen, and subsequently confirmed on review. The reason for refusal was that the Defendant was not satisfied that he met the ‘good character’ requirement for naturalisation because of his conviction for a speeding offence which would not be ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 until 17th November 2016. He had been driving at 81mph in a temporary 50mph section of a motorway.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was not irrational, but had erred on concentrating solely on the conviction: ‘ in deciding whether an applicant for naturalisation meets the requirement that ‘he is of good character’, for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Defendant must consider all aspects of the applicant’s character. The statutory test is not whether applicants have previous criminal convictions – it is much wider in scope than that. In principle, an applicant may be assessed as a person ‘of good character’, for the purposes of the 1981 Act, even if he has a criminal conviction. Equally, he may not be assessed as a person ‘of good character’ even if he does not have a criminal conviction. ‘ The respondent had ignored unusually strong evidence of good character.

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 254 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, British Nationality Act 1981 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.521402

NA and Another, Re Judicial Review: SCS 18 Feb 2014

Outer House – In this petition for judicial review, the petitioners seek reduction of the decision by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to refuse permission to appeal from the decision of the FTT adverse to their case.

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 27

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.521413

AA (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer – Addis Ababa: CA 1 May 2012

A child sought entry clearance as a de facto adopted child of his sponsor who had accepted status of refugee.
Held: The changes to the Immigration rules did not extend those rules beyond application to natural and adopted children so far as de facto adopted children.
Notwithstanding the grant of entry clearance under article 8, the appeal was not academic: ‘The answer provided is that if entry is permitted under the Immigration Rules the entitlement of AA to remain thereafter will in effect align with the sponsor’s entitlement, whereby indefinite leave to remain can be expected to be granted after the expiry of the five-year period: whereas grant of leave to remain under article 8 is discretionary and not necessarily so linked to the sponsor’s position.’

Judges:

Arden, Toulson, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2012] WLR(D) 134, [2013] 1 WLR 268, [2012] 3 FCR 96, [2013] INLR 85, [2012] 3 All ER 893, [2012] Imm AR 858, [2012] EWCA Civ 563

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration Rules 309A, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – AA v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa) SC 18-Dec-2013
The appellant child, AA sought entry as the de facto adopted child of his sponsor who had previously been given refugee status. The sponsor had taken parental responsibility of AA under the Islamic Kafala procedure. AA had been admitted under human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.454043

RB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 13 Mar 2012

The appellant claimed asylum on the basis that she was a member of the Bajuni minority clan from Koyama, an island in Somalia. If that was true, she risked persecution from the majority clan. She appealed against an adverse finding based in part on evidence given from a an expert body SPRAKAB under conditions of anonymity.
Held: ‘Linguistic analysis at SPRAKAB is a two-stage process. First, the analyst listens to a recorded specimen of speech, typically an interview. The analyst notes features of the speech which appear to be of interest. Second, the analyst discusses those features with a linguist. The analyst and linguist decide whether the features are diagnostic of the speaker’s origin and produce a report with four grades of likelihood: certainty (one way or the other), most likely, likely and possibly. The rationale for identification of the degree of certainty or otherwise is usually explained in the report. The analysts are given extensive training by the linguists so as to look for certain distinctive features of any particular language or dialect. ‘

Judges:

Rix, Moses LJJ, Briggs J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 277, [2012] WLR(D) 77

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – RB (Linguistic Evidence SPRAKAB) Somalia UTIAC 15-Sep-2010
1 Linguistic analysis reports from Sprakab are entitled to considerable weight. That conclusion derives from the data available to Sprakab and the process it uses. They should not be treated as infallible but evidence opposing them will need to deal . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Home Department v MN and KY SC 6-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the use of linguistic analysis (provided by SPRAKAB) as evidence in immigration cases so as to identify the origin of an appellant.
Held: The Practice Directions already provided guidance on the use and admission of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Evidence

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.451904

Miah and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 7 Mar 2012

The applicant had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant at a time even though he was only two months short of the five years’ continuous residence necessary to support a case for indefinite leave to remain under the rules. He argued that, in assessing whether his removal should be permitted under article 8.2 of the Convention, the weight to be given to the maintenance of immigration controls should be diminished because he had missed satisfying the rules by only a small margin.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Stanley Burnton, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 261, [2013] QB 35, [2012] 3 WLR 492, [2012] Imm AR 702, [2012] WLR(D) 68

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 88.2

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

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.451832

Latayan v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Feb 2020

The court was asked: ‘(1) Whether as a matter of law the child of a person who is in a relationship with an EU citizen (which is not a marriage or a civil partnership) is a direct descendant of the citizen within the meaning of the Regulations that give effect to the Citizens Directive – a question of law.
(2) Whether, if the Appellant is not a direct descendant but an extended family member, she was before arriving in the UK a dependant of the EU citizen within the meaning of the Regulations – a question of fact.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 191

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.648257

Ishtiaq v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 26 Apr 2007

The applicant sought leave to remain in the UK permanently after her relationship with her spouse had broken down after domestic violence. She now complained that the officer who had decided her case had treated himself as bound to accept as conclusive her failure to provide a copy of a court order to that effect.
Held: The officer had wrongly considered that he did not have a discretion. An applicant is not limited to evidence within the categories suggested. It was wrong to expect someone to stay in an abusive or violent relationship for two years to qualify for indefinite leave to remain.

Judges:

Chadwick, Dyson , Thomas LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 386, Times 22-May-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AN (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against refusal of indefinite leave to remain. She said that she feared if she returned to Pakistan she would be subject to domestic violence. Though her husband had received prison sentences of three years for offences of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Family

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.251503

Miftari v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 18 May 2005

The court emphasised the limited nature of the IAT’s jurisdiction under the 2002 Act, which is now restricted to considering points of law only: ‘Since the IAT now has jurisdiction to determine only points of law, it cannot put itself in the position of the lower court and decide the whole of the case as it stood there. Unless the decision on the point of law determines the case on the basis of the facts already found below, the IAT has to remit.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 481

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 101(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sithokozile Mlauzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 7-Feb-2005
The applicant appealed against the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing asylum. She feared persecution if returned to Zimbabwe because of her membership of the opposition political party. The IAT had disturbed the adjudicator’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – HC v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged refusal of his asylum application saying that the court had failed to take account of the fact that as a homosexual moslem, he would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The IAT had not properly recognised that at . .
Cited – AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Jan-2007
The asylum claimant had said that he was a minor when his case was first considered, but to the IAT said that at the time of that hearing any error was no longer material since he had now attained 18.
Held: A court should be very reluctant to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.224944

Shala v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 27 Feb 2003

Judges:

Mr Justice Keene Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 233, [2003] INLR 349, [2003] All ER (D) 407

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.179566

M v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Feb 2003

The applicant had been given indefinite leave to remain in England, but was later convicted of indecent assault, and recommended for deportation. On appeal the court said that the order for deportation was disproportionate. After serving his sentence and on release. The respondent decided that he should be deported under the 1971 Act, but gave no reasons.
Held: Where a court had once considered the issues and decided that deportation would be wrong on the merits of the case, the Secretary of State must give appropriate weight to that decision when making his own. An administrative decision inconsistent with a decision of a court on the same issue and same material was permissible so long as it was properly explained: ‘ . . A duty owed by one decision-maker – A – to take account of the views or decision of another decision-maker – B – upon the same or an overlapping issue means nothing whatever unless A has to engage with what B has said: to explain, however shortly, why he differs from it he does.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

Times 03-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 146, Gazette 17-Apr-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1980

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Nazari CACD 1980
The CACD heard several appeals together, giving guidance as to the general principles to be applied in deciding on recommendations for deportation under the Act. Lawton LJ said that ‘no court should make an order recommending deportation without . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Dinc CA 15-Mar-1999
When deciding whether to order a deportation, the Home Secretary will have much material not before the courts, including as to conditions in the place to which the applicant might be deported), and he is better placed to take a wider policy-based . .

Cited by:

Cited – Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Immigration

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.179486