Category: Immigration

RG v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Apr 2006

The applicant sought permission to appeal against a refusal of a judicial review. The application was being heard seven months later.
Held: Permission was refused. Delay was inimical to justice. The solicitors, the Legal Services Commission and the transcibers had to overhaul their administrative procedures to ensure that communicatins were properly logged, and email being not 100% reliable should not be relied upon exclusively. Solicitors should have systems in place to chase matters when they did not receive a reply within a few days.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 396, Times 12-May-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.241971

LD (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1 Jul 2004

The claimant arrived in England on a six month pass. He then applied for asylum, but his claim was rejected. He later resisted an attempt to remove him on human rights grounds. The court considered the guidance from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on appeals which were entirely based upon human rights claims after completion of a previous determination.
Held: The guidance was correct. The IAT was a specialist tribunal and was entitled to give such guidance to the entire body of practitioners.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Tuckey Kay, Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 804, Times 12-Jul-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Ruslanas Bagdanavicius, Renata Bagdanaviciene v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Nov-2003
Failed Roma asylum applicants challenged an order for their return to Lithuania. There had been family objections to the mixed marriage leaving them at risk of violence from the local mafia, and an order for their return would infringe their article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.198475

Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Mar 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 314

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2001
The relevant test of whether an order returning an asylum applicant to another country would infringe his human rights was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner faced a real risk of relevant ill treatment if . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hari Dhima v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 8-Feb-2002
The appellate sought judicial review to challenge an order for his return to Albania. He said that he would be subject to persecution from communist sympathizers, and his life was at risk for a blood feud. Adjudicators had variously accepted and . .
Appealed to – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2001
The relevant test of whether an order returning an asylum applicant to another country would infringe his human rights was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner faced a real risk of relevant ill treatment if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.168089

JH (Palestinian Territories) v Upper Tribunal of The Immigration and Asylum Chamber and Another: CA 17 Jul 2020

Whether on a successful claim, costs of judicial review claim were to be ordered against the Secretary of State, or whether appropriate to order that costs of judicial review claim to be treated as costs in appeal before Upper Tribunal.

Judges:

Macur, Bean, Haddon-Cave LJJ

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 919, [2021] 1 WLR 455, [2020] WLR(D) 429

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Costs

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.652572

Said (Article 1D : Meaning) Palestinian Territories: UTIAC 15 Nov 2012

UTIAC 1. Because of the wording of the Qualification Directive, Community law looks outside itself for the interpretation of article 1D, and the CJEU’s pronouncement on the meaning of this aspect of refugee law is a pronouncement on the autonomous meaning of article 1D.
2. Following the CJEU’s reversal of the operative part of the decision of the Court of Appeal in El-Ali [2002] EWCA Civ 1103, the other elements of the latter decision may need to be reconsidered, possibly along the lines set out by the Advocate General in Bolbol v Bevandorlasi es Allampolgarsagi Hivatal Case C-31/09.

Judges:

Ockleton VP, McGeachy UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 413 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.466467

BN (OFM- Annulment of Residence Permit) Ghana: UTIAC 4 Apr 2011

UTIAC Where a residence card has been issued in a passport on an application duly made it becomes a valid document if it has not been cancelled before it is communicated to the applicant.
An application for a residence card cannot be lawfully refused it has already been issued.
A residence card may be revoked if it is shown that was issued by mistake to someone not entitled to it.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 163 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433620

HS (EEA: Revocation and Retained Rights) Syria: UTIAC 13 Apr 2011

UTIAC 1. Where the Secretary of State revokes a residence card before the expiry of its validity it falls on her to justify such revocation.
2. Regulation 10 of Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 requires the applicant to demonstrate that: a genuine marriage has lasted three years and the couple have spent one year together in the United Kingdom and that the EEA national spouse was exercising treaty rights at the time he ceased to be a family member.

Judges:

McGeachy J

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 165 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433621

SO (Imprisonment Breaks Continuity of Residence) Nigeria: UTIAC 7 Apr 2011

UTIAC Time spent in prison however short is to be disregarded in the calculation of the period required to obtain a permanent right of residence with the consequence that that period has to start again on release.

Judges:

Silber J, Warr SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 164 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433622

Molla (Established Presence – Date of Application) Bangladesh: UTIAC 3 May 2011

UTIAC When assessing whether a Tier 4 (General) applicant has an ‘established presence’, the relevant date for calculating whether he has completed a course of study within specified periods of time is the date of application.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 161 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433623

VVT (LCPS: No Post Graduate Diplomas) India: UTIAC 31 Mar 2011

UTIAC This is a First-tier Tribunal determination that is reported for what has been found in relation to London College of Professional Studies namely that LCPS did not teach any non-accredited courses nor itself award or issue postgraduate diplomas in any subject. No one claiming to have undertaken such courses at LCPS can have done so without knowing that such a claim amounted to a false representation.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 162 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433619

Okafor and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Apr 2011

The court was asked as to the circumstances in which family members of an EU citizen are entitled to permanent residence in another Member State where the EU citizen dies before acquiring the right of permanent residence.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Thomas, Etherton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 499

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.432923

Mushtaq (Clarity of Judge’s Decision) Pakistan: UTIAC 28 Mar 2011

UTIAC In an appeal against a refusal to vary leave or a decision to curtail leave or a decision to vary leave such that an individual’s leave is effectively curtailed, there is a right of appeal on human rights grounds. There is nothing in SA (Pakistan) and Ors v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 210 which suggests to the contrary or which was intended by the Court to contradict its judgment in JM (Liberia) v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1402.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 122 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432806

HS (Palestinian – Return To Gaza) Palestinian Territories CG: UTIAC 11 Apr 2011

UTIAC (1) The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider practical issues concerning the return of a Palestinian family to Gaza. GH [2005] EWCA Civ 1182 and HH (Somalia) [2010] EWCA Civ 426 applied.
(2) Palestinians from Gaza with passports (expired passports can be renewed via a straightforward procedure) are unlikely to experience problems in obtaining and, if necessary getting extensions of, visas from the Egyptian authorities to enter Egypt and cross into Gaza via the Rafah crossing.
(3) The conditions likely to be experienced by Palestinians in Egypt while awaiting crossing into Gaza are not such as to give rise to breach of their human rights.
(4) On the basis of the authorities: MA [2008] Imm AR 617; MT [2009] Imm AR 290 and SH [2009] Imm AR 306, it would not be persecutory or in breach of their human rights for Palestinians to be refused entry to Gaza.
(5) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide whether Israel has acted in breach of customary international law in respect of its treatment of Palestinians within the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
(6) The conditions in Gaza are not such as to amount to persecution or breach of the human rights of returnees or place them in need of international protection.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 124 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432810

Thakur (PBS Decision – Common Law Fairness) Bangladesh: UTIAC 23 Mar 2011

UTIAC 1. A decision by the Secretary of State to refuse further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant was not in accordance with the law because of a failure to comply with the common law duty to act fairly in the decision making process when an applicant had not had an adequate opportunity of enrolling at another college following the withdrawal of his sponsor’s licence or of making further representations before the decision was made.
2. The principles of fairness are not to be applied by rote: what fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision and the particular circumstances of the applicant.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 151 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432808

SI (Variation/Curtailment:Human Rights Ground) Pakistan: UTIAC 28 Mar 2011

UTIAC In an appeal against a refusal to vary leave or a decision to curtail leave or a decision to vary leave such that an individual’s leave is effectively curtailed, there is a right of appeal on human rights grounds. There is nothing in SA (Pakistan) and Ors v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 210 which suggests to the contrary or which was intended by the Court to contradict its judgment in JM (Liberia) v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1402.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 118 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432807

Aleem (Pankina-Uplift for Overseas Earnings) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 28 Mar 2011

UTIAC The requirement by the respondent that an applicant for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant, whose last leave was as a Tier 4 (General) Student), must have physically undertaken work in an overseas country for an uplift to apply to his earnings in that country, is imposed by Guidance only and is not contained in the Rules. Thus, in line with SSHD v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719, this Guidance is ineffective to impose such an additional requirement.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 120 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432803

Adubiri-Gyimah and Others (Post-Study Work – Listed Institution) Ghana: UTIAC 28 Mar 2011

UTIAC The requirement imposed by the Immigration Rules, Appendix A, Table 9, paragraph 2(a) on an applicant as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant relates to the status of the relevant institution at the time of study.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 123 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432802

Swash v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 26 Jul 2006

The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original determination which vitiated all findings of fact made by the Immigration Judge.
Held: the appeal failed. When a case was sent by the AIT to an immigration judge for reconsideration, he should normally receive the original decision from which an appeal was sought.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1093, Times 14-Aug-2006, [2007] 1 All ER 1033, [2007] 1 WLR 1264

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 103B, Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 31(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aissaoui Admn 1997
The IAT had remitted an appeal to be heard de novo by another adjudicator. The second adjudicator dismissed the appeal, but recorded that the determination of the first adjudicator had been on file and that he had ‘had the advantage of having . .
Cited – AH (Scope of S103A Reconsideration) Sudan IAT 19-Apr-2006
Mr Ockelton: ‘If (despite some material error of law) an issue or matter has been properly and satisfactorily dealt with in the first decision, there is no reason why further time should be spend on it in the reconsideration. Although the Tribunal . .
Cited – Gashi v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 5-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – Dritan Gashi v Secretary of State for the Home Department IAT 2001
Referring to the decsision in Aissaoui, the tribunal set out guidelines: ‘(1) As a general rule it is best practice for an adjudicator hearing an appeal de novo not to read the Determination of a previous adjudicator unless expressly invited to do . .
Cited – Feld, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v London Borough of Barnet, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicants sought housing as homeless people. After the refusal of their applications, they sought a review, and in due course a second review. That second review was conducted by the same officer who had conducted the first. The appellant . .
Cited – Regina (Gashi) v Chief Immigration Adjudicator QBD 17-Aug-2001
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the chief adjudicator refusing an appeal from a decision of the special adjudicator rejecting his asylum claim. His evidence had been rejected as inconsistent, but he claimed that this was due to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.243421

Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Apr 2006

Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language in section 115 of the 2002 Act, it was held in R (L) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 WLR 1230 at paras 49 and 56-58 that a claim is clearly unfounded if it cannot on any legitimate view succeed; but if there is an ‘arguable case’ or on at least one legitimate view of the facts the claim might succeed it does not qualify for certification. This is essentially the same as the test adopted in R (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 36, [2003] 1 AC 920 in relation to the materially identical expression ‘manifestly unfounded’ in section 72(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In Yogathas it was stated by Lord Bingham of Cornhill at para 14 that the Home Secretary is entitled to certify if, after reviewing the relevant material ‘he is reasonably and conscientiously satisfied that the allegation must clearly fail’; and by Lord Hope at para 34 that the question is ‘whether the allegation is so clearly without substance that the appeal would be bound to fail’. See further, the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1605, [2004] 1 WLR 1207, per Auld LJ at para 58.’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Richards

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 379, [2006] Imm AR 417, [2006] INLR 354

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 6-Oct-2005
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Cited – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
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

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.241973

Kariharan and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 15 Apr 2002

There is a right of appeal against removal directions under section 65 of the 1999 Act on the ground that removal would be in breach of a person’s human rights. Auld LJ was not impressed by an argument that a restrictive interpretation was necessary to prevent abuse. On the one hand a last-minute challenge would not necessarily be abusive: there might genuinely have been changes of circumstance with the passage of time. And on the other, ‘If and to the extent that such an interpretation is open to abuse by repetitive last-minute claims, it seems to me that Parliament must be taken to have had that possible outcome in mind in including the anti-abuse and one-stop provisions in the 1999 Act . . The fact that those provisions may not provide absolute protection against abuse . . is no basis for a contrary construction, given the importance of the human rights in play.’
Sedley LJ agreed: ‘It is not this court’s job to fill gaps perceived by one party to litigation in Parliament’s provision, especially when the mechanism is not to read the abuse provisions generously but to constrict the antecedent right to which they relate.’

Judges:

Auld, Sedley, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 615, [2003] Imm AR 163, [2003] QB 933, [2002] INLR 383, [2002] 3 WLR 1783

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Regina (on the Application of Kanagasingham Kariharan and Kanagara) v Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 30-Jul-2002
The applicants were subject to removal directions following the failures of their applications for asylum had failed. The decisions were made before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the direction orders were made afterwards. They sought to . .
Cited – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.217059

Mishto v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 12 Dec 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1978

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mishto, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 19-May-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Mishto, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 19-May-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.193669

Mansoor, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 23 Mar 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to allow her indefinite leave to remain in the UK with her husband and family.
Held: On the facts presented, the interference with the applicant’s family life was such as to make it disproportionate under article 8 to remove her, notwithstanding that she was unable to satisfy a relevant criterion in the rules. Blake J said: ‘ . . the terms of the immigration rules are not a legitimate aim in their own right . . A judgment needs to be made as to how significant the aim, and how far the removal of the particular claimant in the circumstances of her case is necessary to promote that aim. The mere fact a genuine spouse lawfully admitted with her British citizen husband and settled children can no longer meet one requirement of the rules through no fault of her own is unlikely to amount to a weighty reason to justify interference with family life here that is otherwise to be respected.’

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 832 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration Rules

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

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431643

San Michael College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Mar 2011

The college appealed against revocation of its licence to act as an education college catering for overseas students.

Judges:

Behrens J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 642 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Immigration

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430841

Secretary of State for The Home Department v MK (Tunisia): CA 25 Mar 2011

The Secretary appealed against a decision to allow the applicant an in-country appeal against the cancellation of his leave to remain.

Judges:

Pill, Rix, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 333

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 13(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430849

DS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 Mar 2011

Appeal against the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal whereby the appeal of the appellant against the rejection of his claim for asylum was dismissed. It was also held that the appellant is not a person in need of humanitarian protection.

Judges:

Pill, Lloyd, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 305, [2011] INLR 389

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430736

S and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (IAC): Admn 1 Feb 2011

The court was asked as to the entitlement of the claimants to appeal against the rejection of their asylum claims under section 83.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 627 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430743

RR, Re Judicial Review: SCS 11 Aug 2015

Judicial Review of the decision of the Secretary of State made on 4 September 2014 to refuse to receive representations made by the petitioner to her on 27 March 2013 as a fresh claim for asylum for the purposes of Immigration rule 353.

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 109

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.551731

KM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Mar 2011

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lumba (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 . .
Cited – RT (Zimbabwe) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimants said it would be wrong to return them to Zimbabwe where they would be able to evade persecution only by pretending to a loyalty to, and enthusiasm for the current regime.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeals failed. The HJ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430643

Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 16 Mar 2011

The defendant appealed against a decision allowing the claimant to apply for judicial review of its policy relating to the giving of notice of removal from the United Kingdom, and in particular, the alleged absence of any or sufficient notice to certain classes of individuals, including unaccompanied children, and those at risk of suicide and self-harm.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Hooper, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 269, [2011] 1 WLR 2852

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 21-May-2010
The claimant challeged as unlawful the respondent’s policies as to expedited removals of persons from the United Kingdom. . .
Appeal from – 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: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430607

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Abdi: CA 9 Mar 2011

The court was asked: ‘in deciding whether a foreign national facing deportation has been detained for too long, does time which he has spent appealing against deportation count? If it does, then sufficiently protracted legal proceedings will sooner or later secure his release however weak his case and however strong the reasons for detaining him. If it does not, then a detainee with a sound legal challenge to removal or deportation may be penalised for asserting his rights by years of incarceration. So the question inexorably raises another question: is there a middle way?’

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 242

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430470

GS (Article 3 – Health Exceptionality) India: UTIAC 24 Feb 2011

UKIAT In D v United Kingdom [1997] 24 EHRR 43, the claimant came into the exceptional category because he was beyond the reach of medical treatment, and hence no medical care obligation was placed on the expelling state. A seriously ill claimant who will, if he remains, require continuing medical treatment for the foreseeable future, is not an exceptional case.

Judges:

Lord Bannatyne, Allen SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 35 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430362

EN (Continuity of Residence – Family Member) Nigeria: UTIAC 1 Feb 2011

UTIAC To acquire a permanent right of residence under reg. 15(1)(b) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 a family member of a Union citizen must show that both he and the Union citizen have resided in the UK in accordance with the Regulations for a continuous period of five years.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 55 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430361

PM (EEA – Spouse – ‘Residing With’) Turkey: UTIAC 7 Mar 2011

UTIAC Regulation 15(1)(b) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 applies to those who entered a genuine marriage where both parties have resided in the United Kingdom for five years since the marriage; the EEA national’s spouse has resided as the family member of a qualified person or otherwise in accordance with the Regulations and the marriage has not been dissolved. The ‘residing with’ requirement relates to presence in the UK; it does not require living in a common family home.

Judges:

Blake P J, Storey, Perkins SIJJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 89 (IAC), [2011] Imm AR 413

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 15(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430364

KK and Others (Nationality: North Korea) Korea CG: UTIAC 7 Mar 2011

UTIAC 1. Law
(a) For the purposes of determining whether a person is ‘of’ or ‘has’ a nationality within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, it is convenient to distinguish between cases where a person (i) is (already) of that nationality; (ii) is not of that nationality but is entitled to acquire it; and (iii) is not of that nationality but may be able to acquire it.
(b) Cases within (i) and (ii) are cases where the person is ‘of’ or ‘has’ the nationality in question; cases within (iii) are not.
(c) For these purposes there is no separate concept of ‘effective’ nationality; the issue is the availability of protection in the country in question.
(d) Nationality of any State is a matter for that State’s law, constitution and (to a limited extent) practice, proof of any of which is by evidence, the assessment of which is for the court deciding the protection claim.
(e) As eligibility for Refugee Convention protection is not a matter of choice, evidence going to a person’s status within cases (i) and (ii) has to be on ‘best efforts’ basis, and evidence of the attitude of the State in question to a person who seeks reasons for not being removed to that State may be of very limited relevance.
2. Korea
(a) The law and the constitution of South Korea (ROK) do not recognise North Korea (DPRK) as a separate State.
(b) Under South Korean law, most nationals of North Korea are nationals of South Korea as well, because they acquire that nationality at birth by descent from a (North) Korean parent, and fall therefore within category (i) in 1(a) above.
(c) South Korea will make rigorous enquiries to ensure that only those who are its nationals are recognised as such but the evidence does not show that it has a practice of refusing to recognise its nationals who genuinely seek to exercise the rights of South Korean nationals.
(d) South Korean law does not generally permit dual nationality (North Korean nationality being ignored for this purpose).
(e) South Korean practice appears to presume that those who have been absent from the Korean Peninsula for more than ten years have acquired another nationality displacing their South Korean nationality; such persons therefore move from category (i), in 1(a) above, to category (iii).

Judges:

Ockleton VP, Gleeson SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 92 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430363

Samba Diouf v Minister of Labour, Employment and Immigration: ECJ 1 Mar 2011

ECJ (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) Request by a citizen of a country seeking refugee status – Rejection of this request, as part of a national process accelerated in the absence of reasons justifying the granting of international protection – No appeal against the decision to submit the request for an expedited procedure – Right to effective judicial review.

Citations:

C-69/10, [2011] EUECJ C-69/10

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – Samba Diouf v Minister of Labour, Employment and Immigration ECJ 28-Jul-2011
ECJ Directive 2005/85/EC – Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status – ‘Decision taken on [the] application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430223

Mirza 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.

Judges:

Sedley, Rimer, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 159, [2011] Imm AR 484

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – 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 . .
Not followed – 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 . .
Not Followed – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 1-Jun-2012
Where a first instance judge is faced with a point on which there are two previous inconsistent decisions from judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction, then the second of those decisions should be followed in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429728

ZY (Turkey) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 2 Feb 2011

The appellant, a Turkish national in his mid-thirties, appealed against the determination of Senior Immigration Judge who conducted a second stage reconsideration hearing in November 2009 as a result of which the appellant was refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Ward, Patten, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 65

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429632

MD (Gambia), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Feb 2011

The appellant, a Gambian national sought review of two decisions of the Secretary of State as to first her decision to designate as safe, Gambia, in respect of men only, in the list of countries in section 94(4) of the 2002 Act, and second as to her related decision to certify the Appellant’s case as clearly unfounded pursuant to section 94(2).
Elias LJ applied the words of Lord Phillips MR in Javed to section 94(5) of the 2002 Act sayimg: ‘It is not, therefore, enough to demonstrate occasional breaches of human rights standards even where they amount to persecution. The persecution must be sufficiently systematic properly to be described as a ‘general feature’ in that country, and this in turn requires that it should affect a significant number of people.’

Judges:

Ward, Elias, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 121

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429628

Othman (Abu Qatada) (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Apr 2008

The claimant appealed an order for his deportation back to Jordan, saying that if returned there was a real risk that he would face a trial based on evidence obtained by torture.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A foreign national could not be deported under such circumstances since they would breach his right to a fair trial.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Smith

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 290, [2008] 3 WLR 798, Times 15-Apr-2008, [2008] HRLR 26, [2008] UKHRR 761

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 19-Dec-2008
The two applicants had been detained by the armed forces in Iraq suspected of murder. They sought release before being transferred to the civilian authorities for trial saying that the trials would not be fair. The respondent denied that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.266519

Regina (Nigatu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 9 Jul 2004

The claimant had had his asylum application and appeals rejected. His benefits were stopped. He submitted fresh matters to the respondent.
Held: The respondent was given responsibility by statute to decide fairly whether the new matters reported to him were represnetations about the claim or amounted to a fresh claim. That responsibility had to be exercised carefully, and at the same time the respondent had a duty to ensure that those responsible for any payment of benefits were kept informed of the new claim.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-2004, [2004] EWHC 1806 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.200233