Salih and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 8 Oct 2003

An asylum seeker who was found to be destitute and had failed in his application was entitled to restricted support under the section. The respondent implemented a policy restricting the restriction on the use of the power to those who had some physical impediment preventing movement. The applicant had not been evicted, but had had no financial support for eight weeks.
Held: The policy of not informing potential beneficiaries of the section of its availability was unlawful. There was no justification for relying upon an applicant’s legal representatives to tell him. Such applicants were ex hypothesi destitute, but it was not for the court to say what support should be provided.
Stanley Burnton J said: ‘These considerations lead me to conclude that it is not open to the Home Secretary to decide to refrain from making known his hard cases policy. On principle a policy such as that should be made known to those who may need to avail themselves of it. Leaving aside contexts such as national security, it is in general inconsistent with the constitutional imperative that statute law be made known for the government to withhold information about its policy relating to the exercise of a power conferred by statute.’

Judges:

Stanley Burton J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2273 (Admin), Times 13-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedReilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 30-Oct-2013
The Secretary of State appealed against the decision in favour of Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, that the 2011 Regulations, made under section 17A of the 1995 Act, did not comply with the requirements of that section, and (ii) a cross-appeal brought by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.186715

Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 23 Nov 1989

The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault of that party or his advisor was not one obtained in breach of the rules of natural justice for the purpose of judicial review. The loss of his right to be heard was not a procedural impropriety or denial of natural justice. Nor was he entitled to certiorari. In the public law context of removal from the jurisdiction of an alien, a litigant must answer for the failings of his legal advisers.
Lord Bridge said that any other decision would come ‘at the cost of opening such a wide door which would indeed seriously undermine the principle of finality in decision-making.’
The respondent was an Iraqi student who overstayed his leave to remain in the United Kingdom. When he was served with a notice of the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him he instructed solicitors to lodge an appeal. When a hearing date for the appeal was fixed the solicitors wrote to notify him of the date but negligently sent the letter to his previous address and the respondent never received it. The adjudicator subsequently dismissed the appeal on the basis of the documents before him since neither the respondent nor his solicitors had appeared. When the solicitors received notice of the dismissal they again misaddressed the communication intended to inform the respondent of the result, so that by the time he knew of the dismissal of his appeal it was too late for him to appeal further against the adjudicator’s decision. The respondent applied for, and was granted, certiorari to quash the adjudicator’s decision, the judge holding that he was bound by a previous decision of the Court of Appeal which decided that certiorari ought to be granted where the negligence of the applicant’s solicitors had deprived him of an oral hearing. The judge’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed to the House of Lords.
Held — A party to a dispute who had been afforded an opportunity of presenting his case to the person deciding the dispute but who had lost the opportunity to have his case heard through the fault of the legal advisers to whom he had entrusted the conduct of the dispute on his behalf could not complain that he had been the victim of a procedural impropriety or that natural justice had been denied to him, and it made no difference whether the matter in dispute raised private law or public law issues. Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision and the Secretary of State’s appeal would therefore be allowed.

Judges:

Lord Bridge, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon, Lord Oliver, Lord Goff

Citations:

[1989] 3 WLR 1294, [1989] 3 All ER 843, [1990] 1 AC 876, [1989] UKHL 7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigtaion Act 1971 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust CA 1973
. .
OverruledRahmani and Others v Diggines HL 20-Mar-1986
The Court of Appeal had overturned the rejection of an administrative appeal from a deportation decision, on the ground that there had been a denial of natural justice when the person involved in an administrative appeal did not attend the hearing . .
OverruledRegina v Diggines, ex parte Rahmani CA 1985
R, had failed to attend the hearing of her appeal from a refusal to extend her stay in the UK. Her advisers had failed to note her new address and had been unable to notify her of the hearing. The appeal was dismissed in her absence. The adjudicator . .

Cited by:

CitedMaqsood v The Special Adjudicator, The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Dec-2001
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to proceed with his appeal in his absence. He, his advisers and his witness had gone to the wrong court. The court had changed the venue from previous hearings, but the notice of hearing had not . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Ayres Admn 20-Oct-2004
The prosecutor appealed a decision of the magistrates to dismiss the case for abuse of process, having failed to comply with several and repeated directions as to the management of the case. He said that he had not been given opportunity to make . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
CitedFP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-Jan-2007
The claimants said that rules which allowed an appeal tribunal to proceed in their absence when they were absent through no fault of their own, were unlawful in depriving them of a fair trial. The claimants had each moved house but their former . .
CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
CitedHelena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
AppliedFormosa Plastics Corporation USA v Chauhan and others CA 6-Apr-1998
The defendant sought a second adjournment of his application for leave to appeal against summary judgment for $21m with interest in respect of a judgment obtained in Texas. The defendant was said to have given his personal guarantee for the purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Immigration, Natural Justice

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.180545

Regina v Naillie and Another: HL 14 Jul 1993

An entry into the UK at an airport, for immigration law purposes, was not on disembarkation, nor on going toward immigration control, but only took place when the immigration officer was approached.

Citations:

Independent 01-Jun-1993, Gazette 14-Jul-1993, Times 27-May-1993

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.87408

Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 13 Sep 2019

Application for judicial review which challenges a government deportation policy in respect of the introduction of a removal notice window policy instituted by the Defendant in 2015. The challenge is by Medical Justice, an independent charity established in 2005 which facilitates the provision of independent medical advice and representations to those detained in immigration removal centres, as well as conducting research into issues affecting those in immigration detention.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2391 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.643824

B A, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 12 Dec 2014

The Claimant B A, an Eritrean national, sought judicial review of the Defendant Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to refuse and to certify the Claimant’s asylum claim on third country grounds and to remove her to Italy.

Judges:

McKenna HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4223 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.545130

Karagul and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 27 Nov 2019

Four consolidated claims for judicial review brought by Turkish nationals, challenging decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse them leave to remain (LTR) in the United Kingdom as businesspersons.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3208 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.645821

Muqtaar v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 14 Nov 2011

The claimant challenged as unlawful his continued detention under immigration powers.

Judges:

Timothy Corner QC Dep J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2707 (Admin), C4/2011/3133

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromMuqtaar, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Oct-2012
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim that his detention by immigration officials over many months had been unlawful. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448511

EM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Nov 2011

The court considered whether it was safe to return the applicant to Italy, and said: ‘a system which will, if it operates as it usually does, provide the required standard protection for the asylum seeker will not be found to be deficient because of aberrations.’

Judges:

Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3012 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Citing:

ApprovedRegina v Secretary of State for Department (ex parte Adan) and Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Subaskaran) etc CA 23-Jul-1999
Where a country was a signatory to the Convention, but chose to interpret it so as not to give the same protection against oppression by non-state agents which would be given here, the Home Secretary was wrong to certify such countries, in this case . .

Cited by:

CitedEM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448510

Moneke (EEA OFMS – Assessment of Evidence) Nigeria: UTIAC 11 Nov 2011

This determination should be read in conjunction with Moneke and others (EEA – OFMs) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00341 (IAC).
In determining appeals regarding OFM applications made in country, Immigration Judges should scrutinise with some care the supporting evidence, in order to satisfy themselves that the burden of proof demonstrating eligibility has been discharged.
In the present case, the Upper Tribunal was not satisfied by the evidence because:
a) There were substantial gaps in the evidence produced by the appellants despite the opportunity afforded to submit further material in the light of our previous decision.
b) The appellants produced no documentary evidence to support their claims: (i) to have been provided with financial support by their sponsor to meet their essential living needs when the sponsor was in Germany or before that in Nigeria; (ii) that they lived in the sponsor’s household in Nigeria; (iii) that they were in apprenticeships with nil earnings in Nigeria; (iv) the amount of material support they needed to meet their essential living needs.
c) The oral evidence was implausible as to material parts and flawed by inconsistencies.
d) Both appellants misrepresented their intentions when seeking to enter as visitors.

Judges:

Blake P, Storey UTJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 430 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448395

Hayat (Nature of Chikwamba Principle) Pakistan: UTIAC 22 Nov 2011

UTIAC The significance of Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40 is to make it plain that, in appeals where the only matter weighing on the respondent’s side of an Article 8 proportionality balance is the public policy of requiring an application to be made under the immigration rules from abroad, that legitimate objective will usually be outweighed by factors resting on the appellant’s side of the balance. The Chikwamba principle is not confined to cases where children are involved or where the person with whom the appellant is seeking to remain has settled status in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Menzies L, Lane UTJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 444 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448412

Boktor and Wanis (Late Application for Permission) Egypt: UTIAC 22 Nov 2011

UTIAC Where permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been granted, but in circumstances where the application is out of time, an explanation is provided, but that explanation is not considered by the judge granting permission, in the light of AK (Tribunal appeal – out of time) Bulgaria [2004] UKIAT 00201 (starred) and the clear wording of rule 24(4) of the Asylum and Immigration (Procedure) Rules 2005, the grant of permission to appeal is conditional, and the question of whether there are special circumstances making it unjust not to extend time has to be considered.

Judges:

Allen UTJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 442 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448411

Oppong (Visitor:Length of Stay) Ghana: UTIAC 11 Nov 2011

UTIAC Paragraph 41(i) of HC 395 requires a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a general visitor (other than to accompany an academic visitor) to show that he ‘is genuinely seeking entry as a general visitor for a limited period as stated by him, not exceeding 6 months’.
An application for a visit visa which, if granted, could result in permission to spend more than 6 of 12 months in the United Kingdom is likely to be scrutinised rigorously but it is wrong to refuse someone entry clearance as a general visitor just because they have spent more than six of the last twelve months in the United Kingdom. In certain circumstances a person can utilise paragraph 41 in order to visit the United Kingdom to provide temporary care for a person present here.

Judges:

Lane, Perkins UTJJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 431 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448396

Alam (S 85A; Commencement; Art.8) Bangladesh: UTIAC 19 Oct 2011

UTIAC (1) Where it applies, s. 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 precludes certain evidence from being relied on, in order to show compliance with the Immigration Rules.
(2) ‘Fairness’ arguments concerning the application of the transitional provisions regarding s. 85A, in article 3 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011, may have a legitimate part to play in a proportionality assessment under Article 8 of the ECHR, when assessing the strength of the State’s interest in maintaining the integrity of the Immigration Rules.

Judges:

Lane UTJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 424 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 85A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448394

Sapkota and Another (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 Nov 2011

In each case, the respondent had refused an application for leave to remain, but had taken no prompt steps for their removal. The applicants now said that this rendered the original decision ‘not in accordance with the law’ under section 84(1)(e) of the 2002 Act.

Judges:

Arden, Jackson, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1320, [2012] Imm AR 25, [2012] INLR 218

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 84(1)(e)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTE (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Mar-2009
The applicant had been refused asylum, but because she was a minor had been given discretionary leave to remain. She applied for an extension, but after a two year delay, this was refused. She now said that both the respondent and the immigration . .
AppliedMirza and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Feb-2011
The Secretary of State’s failure to make a removal decision at the same time as, or shortly after, the decision to refuse leave to remain was unlawful. . .

Cited by:

CitedPatel (Consideration of Sapkota – Unfairness) India UTIAC 16-Dec-2011
UTIAC (1) There is no substantive segregation of considerations going to an extension of stay and removal where the appellant seeks leave to remain outside the rules on 395C factors and these are considered on . .
Not FollowedPatel 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

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448323

VC and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle City Council: Admn 24 Oct 2011

Judges:

Munby LJ, Langstaff J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin), [2012] 1 FCR 206, [2012] Fam Law 280, [2012] PTSR 546

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989

Citing:

CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Immigration, Children, Benefits

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448305

Ahmed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 2 Nov 2011

The governing principle laid down by Pankina as understood and applied in subsequent cases was that a substantive or material change to the content of the Immigration Rules must be made by way of amending rules which must be laid before Parliament, and that it was not permissible to cross-refer to the possibility of further substantial or material changes in documents such as policy guidance statements which are not subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, the distinction was between the substantive requirements that an applicant has to meet and the means of proving such eligibility which can properly be the subject of policy guidance.

Judges:

Singh J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2855 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

ExplainedSecretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .

Cited by:

CitedAlvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448097

Anteneh v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 25 Apr 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal who, on appeal from a decision of a special adjudicator, remitted his asylum appeal for rehearing by another special adjudicator.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 669

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.218094

Kose, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Oct 2011

The applicant had arranged to enter the UK to stud, but was rejected on the basis that his English was not of sufficient quality to manage the course he was to undertake. He renewed his application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2594 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445484

EA (Sunni/Shi’A Mixed Marriages) Iraq CG: UTIAC 27 Sep 2011

UTIAC (1) In general there is not a real risk of persecution or other significant harm to parties to a Sunni/Shi’a marriage in Iraq.
(2) It may, however, be shown that there are enhanced risks, crossing the relevant risk thresholds, in rural and tribal areas, and in areas where though a Sunni man may marry a Shi’a woman without risk, the converse may not pertain.
(3) Even if an appellant is able to demonstrate risk in his/her home area, in general it will be feasible for relocation to be effected, either to an area in a city such a Baghdad, where mixed Sunni and Shi’a families live together, or to the Kurdistan region.

Judges:

Allen, Perkins SIJJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 342 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445176

RK v Secretary of State for the Home Department: UTIAC 5 Oct 2011

UTIAC (Entitlement To Represent: S.84) Bangladesh – (1) Section 84(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides that no person may provide immigration advice or immigration services unless he is a qualified person.
(2) Section 82(2) provides that references to the provision of immigration advice or immigration services are to the provision of such advice or services by a person in the United Kingdom ‘in the course of a business carried on (whether or not for profit) by him or by another person’.
(3) Rule 48(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 provides that ‘an appellant . . may . . be represented by any person not prohibited from representing him by section 84.’
(4) Accordingly, where a family friend was seeking (otherwise than in the course of a business) to represent the appellant at a hearing, the Immigration Judge had no right to restrict the friend’s involvement to that of a Mackenzie Friend on the basis that he was not legally qualified (see also HH (Sponsor as representative) Serbia [2008]UKAIT 00063).

Judges:

Lane UTJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 409 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445182

Mohamoud (Paras 352D and 309A – De Facto Adoption) Ethiopia: UTIAC 27 Sep 2011

UTIAC For the purposes of paragraph 352D of the Immigration Rules, an adopted child can include a de facto adoption under paragraph 309A but a parent who is a refugee will normally not be able to meet the residence and care requirements of paragraph 309A.

Judges:

Gill SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 378 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445177

Kishver v Secretary of State for the Home Department: UTIAC 5 Oct 2011

UTIAC (Limited Leave : Meaning) Pakistan – ‘Limited leave’ under s. 10(i)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 includes leave under s. 3C of the Immigration Act 1971.

Judges:

C M G Ockleton VP

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 410 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3C, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 10(i)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445181

Bhanushali v Secretary of State for the Home Department: UTIAC 5 Oct 2011

UTIAC (Re-Using Same Case: New Rules) India
(1) In the fast-changing world of the points-based system, it is important (a) to ascertain the precise basis on which an application has been refused; (b) to identify the relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules; and (c) to check the relevant commencement provisions.
(2) Thus, where an applicant had been refused for not having a valid Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies, because the reference number for that Confirmation had already been used, the Immigration Judge should have ascertained what the Immigration Rules required in that regard, in the circumstances of the applicant’s case. Had she done so, she would have seen that the reason for the refusal was unsound, having regard to the commencement provisions of HC 908.
(3) Pankina and others [2010] EWCA Civ 719; [2010] Imm AR 689 is not authority for any general proposition that the requirements of the Immigration Rules are to be disregarded, merely because an Immigration Judge considers that their application to a particular person would be ‘unfair’.

Judges:

Lane UTJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 411 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445180

Ara (Successful Appeal – No Entry Clearance) Bangladesh: UTIAC 27 Sep 2011

UTIAC An appellant who succeeds in an appeal against the refusal of entry clearance is not entitled automatically to entry clearance.
An entry clearance officer considering whether to grant entry clearance following a successful appeal must decide ‘in the light of the circumstances existing at the time of the decision’ if the appellant satisfies the requirements of the rules (paragraph 27 of HC 395). The entry clearance officer must make a decision on all the relevant evidence including evidence that could have been but was not put before the Tribunal at the appeal. An Immigration Judge does not err by considering such evidence and dismissing the appeal.

Judges:

Perkins, Coker UTJJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 376 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445175

Pun and Others (Gurkhas – Policy- Article 8) Nepal: UTIAC 27 Sep 2011

UTIAC (i) The policy in Chapter 29(4) of the DSP (subsequently replaced by the provisions of SET 12) relating to applications for settlement by adult dependants of former members of HM Forces sets out a true discretion to be exercised outside the Rules by the respondent and cannot reasonably be interpreted as setting out a number of different requirements where the fulfilment of one or more leads to an entitlement to a grant of entry clearance.
(ii) The policy creates a broad discretion to be exercised by the decision taker in the light of the individual facts and circumstances of each case taking into account but not limited to the identified bullet points. These serve to identify some factors which may be relevant whilst not excluding other factors which may depending on the facts of the case be equally relevant.
(iii) As a matter of principle an appellant is entitled to a decision on any appeal before the Tribunal and an article 8 appeal should not be adjourned or sent back to be re-made by the respondent where this course is resisted by the appellant unless there is a compelling reason for doing so. Where as in the present cases a human rights appeal is set in the context of the amendments to the Rules to deal with a particular historical issue and with specific published policies dealing with the approach to be taken in the case of adult dependants not falling within the Rules, a decision under article 8 will inevitably be informed by the provisions of the Rules and the policy.
(iv) If the Tribunal does determine an article 8 appeal when a decision under the policy is or would otherwise be sent back to the respondent, that appeal cannot be treated as a way for the Tribunal to exercise a discretion which under the policy is a matter for the respondent but must be determined in accordance with the guidelines set out by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court.

Judges:

Latter, Jarvis SIJJ, Digney J

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 377 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445178

Abdulaziz, Cabales And Balkandali v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985

The claimants had each settled within the UK in accordance with Immigration rules, but now challenged refusal of leave to remain to their husbands who sought to join them.
Held: Article 8 did not impose a ‘general obligation on the part of a Contracting State to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to accept the non-national spouses for settlement in that country’.
‘Whatever else the word ‘family’ may mean, it must at any rate include the relationship that arises from a lawful and genuine marriage . . even if a family life . . has not yet been fully established’.

Citations:

9473/81, [1985] ECHR 7, 9214/80, 9474/81, (1985) 7 EHRR 471

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedAli and Bibi, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Nov-2015
At the claimants alleged that the rules requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here were an unjustifiable interference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration, Family

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445027

NS v Secretary of State For The Home Department: ECJ 22 Sep 2011

ECJ Opinion – (Principles Of Community Law) Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 – Transfer of asylum seekers to the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application – Obligation on the transferring Member State to exercise the right to assume responsibility for the examination itself under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 – Compatibility of the transfer of an asylum seeker with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR and the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees – Field of application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Relationship between the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the ECHR – Right to an effective remedy – Protocol (No 30) on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom

Judges:

Trstenjak AG

Citations:

C-493/10, [2011] EUECJ C-493/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 343/2003

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionNS v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc ECJ 21-Dec-2011
Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment
ECJ (Grand Chamber) European Union law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Implementation of European Union law – Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – Common European Asylum System – Regulation (EC) No . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444669

AJ v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Sep 2011

The claimant appealed against a refusal of his challenge to the respondent’s decision to refuse him leave to remain in the UK. His claim was on article 8 grounds.

Judges:

Pill, Etherton LJJ, Sir Mark Potter

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1081

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444600

UR and Others (Policy; Executive Discretion; Remittal) Nepal: UTIAC 26 Jan 2011

UTIAC While in rare cases a policy may be expressed in such absolute terms that, on the facts as found, an appeal may be allowed outright under the policy, this should not be confused with the general intention which appears to lie behind the policy. Thus, a policy which allows overage children to be reunited with a settled sponsor in certain circumstances, and whose purpose may appear to be the avoidance of the ‘stranded sibling’ phenomenon, should not be taken to mean that, in most cases, entry clearance will be granted to overage children. Apart from anything else, the policy may have been more loosely drafted than an immigration rule, and the discretion which it imports ought to be exercised by the respondent at first instance.

Judges:

Owen J, McKee SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 480 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444078

RR (Refugee-Safe Third Country) Syria: UTIAC 13 Nov 2010

UTIAC 1) Article 32 of the Refugee Convention applies only to a refugee who has been granted leave to enter and to stay in the United Kingdom in accordance with para 334 of the Immigration Rules: Secretary of State for the Home Department v ST (Eritrea) [2010] EWCA Civ 643 applied.
2) As Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention itself makes clear, in cases in which a claimant has more than one nationality, he will not qualify as a refugee if he can avail himself of the protection of another country of which he is a national.
3) In an asylum appeal in which the claimant has only one country of nationality (country A), it is permissible for the Secretary of State to propose more than one country of destination (country B etc): see JN (Cameroon) [2009] EWCA Civ 643 [23].
4) The question then, is whether by reference to A, the country of nationality, the claimant is a refugee. If he is not, the Refugee Convention does not apply to him. If he is, his appeal falls to be allowed only if his return to country B would be contrary to Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.
5) In any event, possible removal to a country not specified in the notice of decision under appeal is not a matter for the immigration judge.

Judges:

Storey, Latter SIJJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 422 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444070