Category: Immigration

Ternavsky v Council: ECJ 12 May 2015

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against Belarus – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on entry into and transit through the Union territory – Error of assessment

Citations:

[2015] EUECJ T-163/12, ECLI:EU:T:2015:271

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Ternavsky v Council ECFI 23-Apr-2012
Merits – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for suspension of operation – Failure to comply with formal requirements – Inadmissibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.631506

Ahmadi (S47 Decision: Validity; Sapkota) Afghanistan: UTIAC 14 May 2012

UTIAC (1) A removal decision under s. 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 cannot be made in respect of a person until written notice of the decision to refuse to vary that person’s leave to remain has been given to that person. The current practice of the Secretary of State to incorporate both decisions in a single notice is accordingly incompatible with the relevant legislation. As a result, the present usefulness of s. 47 is highly questionable.
(2) The fact that, as the legislation stands, the Secretary of State cannot make a removal decision at the same time as a decision refusing to vary leave, or (for practical purposes) before a person’s s. 3C leave begins, underscores the correctness of the Tribunal’s determination in Patel (consideration of Sapkota – unfairness) [2011] UKUT 484 (IAC), that what is likely to be decisive in cases of this kind is whether the Secretary of State has, in fact, addressed paragraph 395C removal factors, when taking the variation decision.

Judges:

Peter Lane UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 147 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Ahmadi CA 9-May-2013
. .
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: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457690

Barnett and Others (EEA Regulations: Rights and Documentation) Jamaica: UTIAC 14 May 2012

UTIAC (1) In applications under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, care must be taken to identify both the relevant rights being asserted and the relevant documentary confirmation which is being sought in respect of those rights.
(2) The requirement in regulation 17(1)(a) and (2)(a) for the production of a valid passport relates to the passport of the applicant, not the EEA national.
(3) The ‘proof’ that the Secretary of State can lawfully require in applications under regulations 17 and 18 in order to entitle a non EEA national to a residence card (regulation 17) or a permanent residence card (regulation 18) may, nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, entail the production of the passport or other identity document of an EEA national; but it is unlawful to refuse applications merely because such documentation is not forthcoming. The Secretary of State needs to show a valid reason why it is required.
(4) This is particularly so in the case of regulation 18, given that there is likely to be relevant material relating to such documentation on file from a previous, successful, application.

Judges:

Peter Lane UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 142 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457691

Commission v Hungary (Accueil Des Demandeurs De Protection Internationale) (Failure of A Member State To Fulfil Obligations): ECJ 17 Dec 2020

Grand Chamber – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Area of freedom, security and justice – Policies on border checks, asylum and immigration – Directives 2008/115/EC, 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU – Procedure for granting international protection – Effective access – Border procedure – Procedural safeguards – Compulsory placement in transit zones – Detention – Return of illegally staying third-country nationals – Appeals brought against administrative decisions rejecting the application for international protection – Right to remain in the territory

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029, C-808/18, [2020] EUECJ C-808/18

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.660709

DN (Rwanda) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 Feb 2018

The court considered its freedom to depart from an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal

Judges:

Arden, Longmore, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 273, [2018] 3 WLR 490, [2018] 3 All ER 772, [2019] QB 71, [2018] WLR(D) 114

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Constitutional

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.605308

Mujahid, Regina (on The Application of) v First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): CA 31 Mar 2021

Where: (a) an individual who is in the United Kingdom makes an application for indefinite leave to remain which is to be treated as a human rights claim within the meaning of s. 113 of the 2002; and (b) the Secretary of State decides not to grant indefinite leave to remain but grants the individual limited leave to remain, does the Secretary of State ‘refuse a human rights claim’ within the meaning of s. 82(1)(b) of the Act, with the result that the individual has a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal?

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 449

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.660777

Krotov v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Feb 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 69, [2004] 1 WLR 1825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court Admn 7-Oct-2004
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector.
Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.193424

Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 16 Jun 2003

The claimant challenged his continued detention under the 1971 Act after his appeal to the Immigration Appeal tribunal had been successful. He had been accused of rape, but was convicted of a sexual assault, though still serious. Before being released from his sentence, the respondent had authorised his continued detention under the 1971 Act. The IAT had then found a well founded fear of persecution if returned. The respondent had sought to appeal but out of time, and now sought to rely on the exeption allowing deportation where an applicant had committed a ‘particularly serious crime’.
Held: The claimant had been unlawfully detained. The initial refusal of bail had been made on a factually incorrect and prejudicial basis, and though ‘risk of absconding and further offending were matters for proper consideration, such material as there is suggests that the consideration was flawed. There is no hard evidence of it, save for what appears in the bail summary to which I have referred. There is no evidence of careful reappraisal at that stage, or of any attempt to weigh the long period of immigration detention against the perceived prospects of success in any appeal, and the duration of the appeal process. The Secretary of State was entitled to consider his position, but it was incumbent upon him to address the continued detention of the claimant with the utmost care, particularly in regard to the history of the matter, to which I have referred. I am not satisfied that he did so.’

Judges:

Maurice Kay J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1530 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – I, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 28-Jun-2002
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
Cited – Regina v A Special Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte B Admn 17-Dec-1997
Kay J referred to the Secretary of State’s policy documents on the detention and removal of failed asylum seekers and emphasised the need for a careful reappraisal by the Secretary of State in the light of changing circumstances. . .
Cited – In re Wasfi Suleman Mahmod Admn 17-Jan-1994
Laws J considered the Hardial Singh principles, adding: ‘While, of course, Parliament is entitled to confer powers of administrative detention without trial, the courts will see to it that where such a power is conferred the statute that confers it . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.185611

Jollah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (No 2): Admn 9 Nov 2017

Claim for damages for false imprisonment arising out of the imposition of what has been referred to as a curfew, namely a requirement that the claimant be present for a certain number of hours each day at specified premises after release from immigration detention centre.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2821 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Jollah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 24-Feb-2017
Judicial review of refusal to lift curfew conditions . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jollah, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2018
. .
At Admin (2) – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.599409

Jollah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 24 Feb 2017

Judicial review of refusal to lift curfew conditions

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 330 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Jollah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (No 2) Admn 9-Nov-2017
Claim for damages for false imprisonment arising out of the imposition of what has been referred to as a curfew, namely a requirement that the claimant be present for a certain number of hours each day at specified premises after release from . .
Admin (1) – Jollah, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2018
. .
At Admin (1) – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.577300

D, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: Admn 22 May 2006

An asylum-seeker held at a detention centre was not given a medical examination within 24 hours of her arrival at the centre as required by Rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. It was further claimed that transfers to Oakington Detention centre on making claim for asylum was unlawful.
Held: ‘The power to detain asylum seekers is conferred, in wide terms, on the [Secretary of State] by the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 and, in particular, the provisions of Schedule 2 of that Act. The width of the primary statutory provisions has, however, been limited by pronouncements of policy by the Government and by secondary legislation, in the form of the Detention Centre Rules 2001.’

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 980 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2, Detention Centre Rules 2001 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
Cited – SK (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2008
Immigration detention proper after prison release
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that he had unlawfully detained the applicant. The applicant had been detained on release from prison pending his return to Zimbabwe as recommended by the sentencing judge under section 6 of the 1971 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.242948

Kuzjeva and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Southwark: CA 21 Nov 2001

Application for permission to appeal which, on the face of it, is concerned solely with the incidence of costs. It does, however, raise quite clearly an important point of principle.
A family of asylum seekers who had a legal entitlement to some form of accommodation under the 1999 Act, albeit they had made a false start under the Housing Act, had to proceed by a succession of judicial review applications against the responsibility local authority, the London Borough of Southwark. If there was an issue about the legal responsibility of Southwark, it has either been conceded or gone against them because the case rapidly turned simply into a question, not of whether Southwark was responsible but of whether and when and how it was going to fulfil its responsibility.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Costs

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.218534

Bundesamt Fur Migration Und Fluchtlinge and Asile) (Asylum Policy – Conditions for Granting Refugee Status): ECJ 28 May 2020

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Conditions for granting refugee status – Directive 2011/95/EU – Interpretation of Article 9(3) – Reasons for persecution – Article 10(1)(e) – Concept of political opinion – Refusal to perform military service – Conscientious objection

Citations:

C-238/19, [2020] EUECJ C-238/19_O, ECLI:EU:C:2020:404, [2020] EUECJ C-238/19

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.660179

The Commissioners for Her Majestys Revenue and Customs v AD: UTAA 10 Dec 2020

Whether having a Zambrano right could assist for purposes of child benefit scheme – effect of regulation 23(4)(b)(i) of Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 in 2018 still referring to provisions of the by then revoked Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 – whether regulation 23(4)(b)(i) therefore misfired or was `cured’ by Schedule 7 to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 – whether need for a judicial determination (and notification of the same) where application for permission to appeal is not admitted under rule 38(7)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 353 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.659526

Kigen and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 11 Dec 2015

Judges:

Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1286, [2016] 1 WLR 723, [2015] WLR(D) 522

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Department for Work and Pensions v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 27-Jul-2016
The applicant sought disclosure of certain organisations who had provided placements for those seeking work. They said that in the past disclosure had led to adverse publicity for those organisations, and refused disclosure under the department’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.557085

Hafeez, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 2 May 2014

The Claimant challenged various decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse the Claimant’s application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant.

Judges:

Mr Justice Green

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1342 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.525075

MBR v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 17 May 2013

Application: ‘to hold [the procedural judge’s] interlocutor of 12 February 2013 pro non scripto and, in any event, for determination of the application for leave by a quorum of three judges of the Inner House’.

Judges:

Lord Carloway. Lord Justice Clerk

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSIH – 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.512060

G v G: SC 19 Mar 2021

This appeal concerns the relationship of the 1980 Hague Convention (the ‘1980 HC’) to asylum law. The 1980 HC is an international agreement incorporated into UK law which enables the prompt return of a wrongfully abducted child to his or her country of habitual residence.
(1) Does a child named as a dependent on a parent’s asylum application have any protection from refoulement?
(2) Can a return order be made under the 1980 Hague Convention even where a child has protection from refoulement?
(3) Should the High Court be slow to stay an application under the 1980 Hague Convention prior to determination of an application for asylum?

Judges:

Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 9

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issue and Facts

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Council Directive 2005/85/EC, Council Directive 2004/83/EC, Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Re G (A Child : Child Abduction) CA 15-Sep-2020
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Immigration, European

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.660051

Re G (A Child : Child Abduction): CA 15 Sep 2020

Judges:

Hickinbottom, Moylan, Peter Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1185, [2020] WLR(D) 505

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – G v G SC 19-Mar-2021
This appeal concerns the relationship of the 1980 Hague Convention (the ‘1980 HC’) to asylum law. The 1980 HC is an international agreement incorporated into UK law which enables the prompt return of a wrongfully abducted child to his or her country . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Immigration

Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.653894

Regina v Belaifa (Idis Ali): CACD 3 Apr 1996

A Judge must state the reasons for recommending deportation or the order will be invalid. The defendant had been convicted of criminal damage being reckless as to whether wlife was endangered. In the absence of such reasons the defendant would be put in a position of being unable effectively to exercise his right of appeal.

Judges:

Gage J

Citations:

Gazette 03-Apr-1996, (1996) 8 Admin LR 525

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 6(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86113

Peters, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 19 Mar 2014

Hearing to determine the claimant’s challenge to the defendant’s decision to grant her discretionary leave to remain instead of the indefinite leave to remain which she had sought.

Judges:

Stephen Davies J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1336 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.525065

HA (Nigeria)), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Apr 2012

The Claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of (i) decisions to continue to authorise his administrative detention under section 36(1)(a) of the 2007 Act; and (ii) the conditions of that detention.

Judges:

Singh J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 979 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007 36(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452831

Vilvarajah and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 26 Oct 1987

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR, Neill, Ralph Gibson LJJ

Citations:

[1987] EWCA Civ 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Vilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Oct-1991
Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.471052

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir: CA 21 Dec 1979

The claimant appealed refusal of his request for a writ of habeas corpus. He had been detained for return to Pakistand. He had obtained an entry certificate, but then married, but did not disclose that on entry.
Held: The failure amounted to a deception and the detention and intended removal were correct.

Judges:

Stephenson, Eveleigh and Brandon, LJJ

Citations:

[1980] QB 378, [1980] 1 All ER 1041

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir QBD 14-Mar-1979
The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus having been detained pending his removal after failing to disclose his subsquent marriage on entry under an entry certificate.
Held: The request failed on the basis that entry had been obtained by a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir HL 17-Jul-1980
A person who obtained leave to enter, but did so by fraud, was an illegal entrant, on the basis that the fraud had the effect of vitiating the leave to enter which had been granted: ‘it is clear on general principles of law that deception may arise . .
At court of Appeal – Zamir v United Kingdom ECHR 1983
(Commission) Review of the lawfulness of a detention must be by a court, by a body which is judicial in character, and the review must be speedy. The right under Article 5.4 ‘must be seen as independent of the possibility of applying to a court for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.271024

Azia (Proof of Misconduct By Judge) Iraq: UTIAC 26 Mar 2012

UTIAC A party alleging misconduct by a judge needs to prove it. Parties and their representatives need to ensure that the evidence is collected while memories are fresh. Permission to call evidence before the Upper Tribunal may be refused where, in circumstances where a party has not acted promptly to prepare and disclose evidence, it would be unfair to the other party, or not in the interests of justice.

Judges:

Ockleton VP

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 96 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452664