Category: Immigration

CT (Gurkhas:Policy) Nepal: UTIAC 11 Feb 2011

UTIAC 1. The reformulation of policy in relation to family members of Gurkhas in June 2009 supersedes the statement made in the House of Commons on 29 April 2009.
2. The reformulated policy, as it applies to adult children, involves considering a number of relevant circumstances, and a consideration based only on the facts as they were at the date of an application a long time ago may not meet the needs of the case.

Judges:

Ockleton VP, Grubb SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 53 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428699

JA (Revocation of Registration – Secretary of State’S Policy) India: UTIAC 11 Feb 2011

UTIAC In cases where an educational provider has its licence withdrawn during the period between a student’s application for extension of leave as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant and the Secretary of State’s decision on the application, it is the Secretary of State’s practice (as set out in applicable guidance) to limit a student’s existing leave to 60 days, if the student has extant leave of six months or more and if the student was not involved in the reasons why the education provider had its licence withdrawn. The guidance states that the leave of a student who has less than six months will not be limited. This guidance does not give rise to any legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State will grant a period of 60 days’ leave to any student whose original leave had expired by the date of the decision, so as to afford him an opportunity to register with an alternative education provider. It is not irrational or unreasonable for the Secretary of State to distinguish between students who lodge their applications for extension of their leave many months in advance of the expiry of their leave and those who do not.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 52 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428700

SA (Iranian Arabs-No General Risk) Iran CG: UTIAC 10 Feb 2011

UTIAC The Iranian state is suspicious of those Iranian citizens who are also Arabs and regards London as a centre of separatist activity. Being an Iranian Arab returned from the United Kingdom enhances other risk factors but an Iranian Arab does not risk persecution or other ill treatment solely by reason of ethnicity.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J, Perkins, McKee SIJJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 41 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428574

YF (Double Jeopardy – JC Confirmed) China CG: UTIAC 26 Jan 2011

UTIAC 1. The guidance given by the Tribunal in JC (double jeopardy: Art 10 CL) China CG [2008] UKAIT 00036 is confirmed save for the addition of the words underlined immediately below:
‘The risk of prosecution or reprosecution will be a question of fact in individual cases but is more likely where (a) there has been a substantial amount of adverse publicity within China about a case; (b) the proposed defendant has significantly embarrassed the Chinese authorities by their actions overseas; (c) the offence is unusually serious. Generally, snakehead cases do not have the significance they have in the West and are regarded as ordinary (but serious) crimes requiring no special treatment; (d) political factors (which may include the importance attached by the Chinese authorities to cracking down on drugs offenders) may increase the likelihood of prosecution or reprosecution; and (e) the Chinese Government is also particularly concerned about corruption of Chinese officialdom.’
2. Reprosecution/double punishment of a returnee through the administrative disciplinary procedure system is extremely unlikely, since for a person to be considered under this system by virtue of an overseas offence the Chinese authorities must have decided his case was not serious enough to justify reprosecuting him through the criminal law system.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 32 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428572

SA (Political Activist- Internal Location) Pakistan: UTIAC 26 Jan 2011

UTIAC Requiring a political activist to live away from his home area in order to avoid persecution at the hands of his political opponents has never been considered a proper application of the internal relocation principle: see e.g. Nolan J in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p.Jonah [1985] Imm AR 7. And (since October 2006) such a requirement cannot be considered to be consistent with para 3390 of the Immigration Rules (Article 8 of the Qualification Directive). Indeed, the pitfalls of requiring a person to act contrary to his normal behaviour in order to avoid persecution have been further emphasised by the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31.

Judges:

Lord Bannatyne, Storey SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 30 (IAC), [2011] Imm AR 371

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428570

TR (CCOL Cases) Pakistan: UTIAC 26 Jan 2011

UTIAC 1) Just because findings of fact made by the Tribunal in a reported case are not binding does not mean that immigration judges are free to take account or not to take account of such findings at will: (a) the determination may contain an account of the record of evidence; (b) the Tribunal may have made findings of fact and if these relate to the same factual matrix then they should be followed unless there is a good reason to revisit them: see A (Somalia) [2007] EWCA Civ 1040.
2) In cases in which the Secretary of State alleges that a claimant falls foul of para 320(1A) of Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 395 as amended, it will be important to follow the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in AA (Nigeria) [2009] EWCA Civ 773 that knowing deception is needed to show false representations.
3) Given the nature and extent of the evidence found by the Tribunal in NA and Others (Cambridge College of Learning) Pakistan [2009] UKAIT 00033 to point overwhelmingly to a conclusion that CCOL never ran any Postgraduate Diploma in Business Management or in IT, a claimant who relies solely on documents specific to his or her own (claimed) studies in order to maintain the contrary must expect these to be scrutinised closely.

Judges:

Syorey, Perkins SIJJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 33 (IAC), [2011] Imm AR 448

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428571

KJ (Working Holiday Maker – Third Party Support) India: UTIAC 26 Jan 2011

UTIAC The Secretary of State accepts that, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahad v. Entry Clearance Officer [2009] UKSC 16, applicants for entry clearance as working holiday makers under the now defunct paragraph 95 of the Immigration Rules, may rely upon third party support in order to show that they satisfy the requirements of paragraph 95(v), which requires that: ‘(v) [the applicant] is able and intends to maintain and accommodate himself without recourse to public funds;’ However, it will still be necessary for Immigration Judges to determine whether, on the facts, any third party support relied upon will in fact be available and, if so, whether on the whole of the evidence, the applicant satisfies the requirement in paragraph 95(v).

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 34 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428569

AW (Sufficiency of Protection) Pakistan: UTIAC 26 Jan 2011

UTIAC 1. At paragraph 55 of Auld LJ’s summary in Bagdanavicius [2005] EWCA Civ.1605 it is made clear that the test set out in Horvath [2001] 1 AC 489 was intended to deal with the ability of a state to afford protection to the generality of its citizens.
2. Notwithstanding systemic sufficiency of state protection, a claimant may still have a well founded fear of persecution if authorities know or ought to know of circumstances particular to his/her case giving rise to the fear, but are unlikely to provide the additional protection the particular circumstances reasonably require (per Auld LJ at paragraph 55(vi)).
3. In considering whether an appellant’s particular circumstances give rise to a need for additional protection, particular account must be taken of past persecution (if any) so as to ensure the question posed is whether there are good reasons to consider that such persecution (and past lack of sufficient protection) will not be repeated.

Judges:

Lord Bannatyne, Storey SIJ

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 31 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428568

AE (Libya), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 2 Feb 2011

The appellant challenged as unlawful his administrative detention nafter finishing his prison sentence and pending removal to Libya.

Judges:

Stephen Davis J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 154 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428421

ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 2009

The respondent sought an order returning the applicant to Tanzania, but she had children with British nationality, and the consequences of the order would be inevitably that they would have to go with her.
Held: The court criticised the Tribunal’s view that the children could live with their father.

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428471

MSS v Belgium And Greece: ECHR 21 Jan 2011

Grand Chamber – The applicant alleged that his expulsion by the Belgian authorities had violated Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and that he had been subjected in Greece to treatment prohibited by Article 3; he also complained of the lack of a remedy under Article 13 of the Convention that would enable him to have his complaints examined. ECtHR noted UNHCR’s claim (in a letter to the Belgian government in April 2009) that the Fourth Section in KRS had apparently overlooked some of the criticisms that it had made of Greece. No reference had been made to whether conditions of reception conformed to regional and international standards of human rights protection or whether asylum seekers had access to fair consideration of their asylum applications or if they were able to exercise their rights under the Geneva Convention. The Grand Chamber reviewed the numerous reports and materials that had been generated about the situation in Greece since the KRS decision. It observed that these all agreed about the deficiencies of the asylum procedure in Greece. The court therefore concluded that the situation in Greece was known to the Belgian authorities; that seeking assurances from the Greek government that the applicant faced no risk of treatment contrary to ECHR was not sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk where reliable sources had reported practices that were tolerated by the authorities and which were manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention; and that the Aliens Office of the Belgian government ‘systematically applied the Dublin Regulation . . without so much as considering the possibility of making an exception’
Held: There had been a violation by Belgium of article 3 of EHCR because by sending the applicant back to Greece, the Belgian authorities exposed him to detention and living conditions there which were in breach of that article.

Judges:

Jean-Paul Costa, P

Citations:

30696/09, [2011] ECHR 108, [2011] ECHR 748, 31 BHRC 313, [2011] INLR 533, (2011) 53 EHRR 2

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

Cited – EM (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.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428267

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants: CA 27 Jun 1996

The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who were awaiting appeal.
Held: Leaving asylum applicants without benefits defeated the purpose of the asylum laws. The Regulations were quashed. Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status, or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution. Non-asylum-seeking immigrants had since 1980 invariably been admitted subject to the condition of ‘no recourse to public funds’ and, more importantly, unlike asylum seekers, can in any event return to their country of origin.

Judges:

Neill LJ, Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 27-Jun-1996, [1997] 1 WLR 275, [1996] 4 All ER 385, [1996] EWCA Civ 1293

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 21, Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Regulations 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Husain) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 5-Oct-2001
New regulations created a system under which applicants for asylum could be deprived of all benefits on the decision of an asylum support adjudicator. That person was appointed by the Home Secretary, and it was alleged was not impartial. It was . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte F S Salem Admn 11-Dec-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him asylum. The decision had been made and his benefits stopped, but he was not given any detail of the notice for several months.
Held: The decision did appear to have been made and . .
Cited – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
Cited – K v London Borough of Lambeth CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing . .
Cited – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Cited – Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 26-Jul-2017
The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice.
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.87771

Messaoud, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 5 Nov 2019

This application concerns the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to provide, or arrange for the provision of, support for asylum seekers and their dependants. Specifically whether the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 section 95 confers upon her an obligation to provide a bail address for a person applying for immigration bail.

Judges:

HHJ Blackett sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2948 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.643846

ZM v AM: FD 26 Jun 2014

‘A very young wife was lawfully brought to the United Kingdom, where she was dependent upon her husband and his family, and where she gave birth to a child who has major disabilities. Her husband made little effort to secure for her the immigration status to which she was entitled and when the marriage got into difficulties, she was then sent out of the country with no right to re-enter. The result is that she and her child have been separated for the past three years, a situation that is a wholesale breach of their right to respect for their family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The only way in which this breach can be remedied is by the mother regaining the ability to enter this country. The nature of the child’s condition means that while his mother remains abroad there is no opportunity for any meaningful relationship between them.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Peter Jackson

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2110 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.534359

Joint Council for The Welfare of Immigrants, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Dec 2010

The claimants challenged the imposition by the defendant of interim limits on (1) the number of applicants for entry clearance who may be issued with visas under Tier 1 (General) of the Points based system (PBS); and (2) the number of certificates of sponsorship (COS) that may be issued under Tier 2 (General) of the PBS. They had not been laid before Parliament.
Held: Though there was a spectrum, both the overall limit and any changes to it were a critically important part of the rules. The material laid before Parliament had failed to specify the limits that were being applied to individual sponsors. It followed that no interim limits were lawfully published or specified by the Secretary of State for either tier and that there was not, and never had been, a limit on the number of applicants who might be admitted under either Tier 1 or in the number of certificates of sponsorship that might be issued to Tier 2 sponsors.

Judges:

Sullivan LJ, Burton J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3524 (Admin)

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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Apr-2011
The respondent had suspended and revoked the licence of the claimant company to enrol non-EEA students on its courses. . .
Cited – Alvi, 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: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.431945

Suppiah and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 11 Jan 2011

Wyn Williams J said: ‘a policy which is in principle capable of being implemented lawfully but which nonetheless gives rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision-making is itself an unlawful policy.’

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427932

MM (Iran) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Nov 2010

Appeal against the order of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal following a reconsideration hearing that the tribunal’s earlier determination promulgated dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of his asylum claim should stand, because there was no error of law in the tribunal’s conclusion in 2007 that the appellant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran.
Sullivan LJ said: ‘In reality, a decision by the UNHCR as to refugee status will, given the UNHCR’s particular expertise and responsibilities under the Refugee Convention, be given considerable weight by the Secretary of State and the tribunal unless in any particular case the decision taker concludes that there are cogent reasons not to do so on the facts of that individual case. It would be just as unrealistic to contend that a decision by the UNHCR as to refugee status must always be given considerable weight regardless of any indications to the contrary as it would be to contend that it could be given less than considerable weight for no good reason.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Sullivan, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1457, [2011] INLR 206

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – IA (Iran) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department (Scotland) SC 29-Jan-2014
The appellant Iranian challenged refusal of his claim for asylum. He had been granted refugee status in Iraq and in Turkey by the United Nations commission, but on arrival in the UK, his asylum claim had been rejected on the basis of the credibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427362

Quila and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Dec 2010

The court was asked whether the ban contained in paragraph 277 of the immigration rules on the entry for settlement of foreign spouses between the ages of 18 and 21 is a lawful way of dealing with the problem of forced marriages.

Judges:

Sedley, Pitchford, Gross LLJ

Citations:

[2011] Fam Law 232, [2010] EWCA Civ 1482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Quila and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Dec-2009
The claimant, a Chilean national, sought review of a decision not to allow him to stay in the UK as the husband of a British national. He said that the decision was based on him being under 21, and that this was discriminatory, and infringed his . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Immigration

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427373

Wray, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Dec 2010

Application for judicial review against the decision of the Defendant to refuse to treat a series of submissions by the Claimant that he should not be removed from the UK because such removal would infringe his Article 8 ECHR rights as a fresh claim under paragraph 353 Immigration Rules HC395.

Judges:

Bidder QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3301 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427285

KD, Re Judicial Review: SCS 27 May 2009

Outer House – Request for judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing to treat representations made on claimant’s behalf as a fresh claim for asylum.

Judges:

Lady Dorrian

Citations:

[2009] ScotCS CSOH – 73

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.346595

J v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 May 2005

The applicant, a Tamil threatened to commit suicide if returned to Sri Lanka. It had been accepted by the Home Secretary that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and depression. The medical evidence was that ‘His prognosis (was) presently extremely uncertain . . he had attempted suicide. Though the shock of being refused asylum had been a precipitant, the significant predisposing factors relate to his traumatic experiences. These had then led to his depressive illness the onset of which could be established to the period when he was detained by the Sri Lankan army . . He continues to present with a risk of suicide. This could be aggravated if he had to return to Sri Lanka. Such risk would be high as a result of his knowing that the Home Office would return him to Sri Lanka.’ and ‘if [J] is sent back to Sri Lanka the risk of exacerbating his existing suicidal ideation is greatly increased because he is likely to have lost all hope. Hopelessness has a serious, significant association with completed suicide. In my opinion, if he does not manage to kill himself in the UK there is a high risk that he would try to commit suicide en route and may therefore pose a threat to other passengers in his desperation to kill himself.
If he is prevented from killing himself either in the UK or while being returned I think it is likely that he would commit suicide upon his arrival in Sri Lanka to avoid falling into the hands of the authorities from whom he perceives he is in mortal danger.’
Held: The claim under Article 3 failed. When deciding whether there was a real risk of a breach of article 3 in a suicide case, a question of importance was whether the fear of ill-treatment upon which the suicide was said to be based, was objectively well founded.

Judges:

Brooke VP, Dyson, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 629, [2005] Imm AR 409

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Y (Sri Lanka) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Apr-2009
The applicants appealed against orders for them to be returned to Sri Lanka where they would be subject to arrest and where there were uncontested findings that they had already been tortured and raped whilst in official custody before fleeing Sri . .
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 . .
Cited – AN (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against refusal of indefinite leave to remain. She said that she feared if she returned to Pakistan she would be subject to domestic violence. Though her husband had received prison sentences of three years for offences of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.225264

Saleem v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 13 Jun 2000

A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator’s determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power to make rules, but the receipt of the determination was fundamental to the exercise of the rights under the Act. ‘There is an analogy here with the principles established under Article 6 of the ECHR. Immigration and asylum cases have not been held by the ECHR to be ‘the determination of his civil rights and obligations’ for the purpose of Article 6. Furthermore, Article 6 does not guarantee a right of appeal. But if the State establishes such a right it must ensure that people within its jurisdiction enjoy the fundamental guarantees in Article 6′. The right of appeal to an independent appellate body was a fundamental or basic right akin to the right of unimpeded access to a court, an infringement of which must be either expressly authorised by or arise by necessary implication from an Act of Parliament.

Judges:

Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

Times 22-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 186, [2001] 1 WLR 443

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 2070, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others SC 26-Nov-2009
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been . .
Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.147219

T (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 1 May 2013

‘The Claimant, a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee with a right of residence in the UK, seeks to prevent the Defendant removing her brother to Germany as a safe third country which has accepted the responsibility of dealing with his asylum claim under the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation. She does so on the basis that his removal will breach her rights as a refugee because of the likely effect on her mental health.’

Judges:

Philip Mott QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1093 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.510195

Secretary of State for The Home Department v DD (Afghanistan): CA 10 Dec 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for asylum and protection on human rights grounds. He said that if returned to Afghanistan he would face a real risk of serious harm.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1407

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 54, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Nov-2012
The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427003

McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ECJ 25 Nov 2010

ECJ (European Citizenship) Citizenship of the Union – Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Dual nationality – Article 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Beneficiary – Legal residence – Family unification – Discrimination against one’s own nationals.

Citations:

C-434/09, [2010] EUECJ C-434/09, [2011] EUECJ C-434/09

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426675

HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Oct 2010

Appeal against order for the deportation of the applicant to Iraq.

Judges:

Pill, Jackson, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1322

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426703

HK and Others (Minors, Indiscriminate Violence, Forced Recruitment By Taliban, Contact With Family Members) Afghanistan CG: UTIAC 23 Nov 2010

1. Children are not disproportionately affected by the problems and conflict currently being experienced in Afghanistan. Roadside blasts, air-strikes, crossfire, suicide attacks and other war-related incidents do not impact more upon children that upon adult civilians.
2. While forcible recruitment by the Taliban cannot be discounted as a risk, particularly in areas of high militant activity or militant control, evidence is required to show that it is a real risk for the particular child concerned and not a mere possibility.
3. Where a child has close relatives in Afghanistan who have assisted him in leaving the country, any assertion that such family members are uncontactable or are unable to meet the child in Kabul and care for him on return, should be supported by credible evidence of efforts to contact those family members and their inability to meet and care for the child in the event of return.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 378 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426537

MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 24 Nov 2010

The asylum applicant had been found to have lied to exaggerate the risk of persecution if he was returned to Somalia. The Court was now asked as to the relevance of that finding, and as to the legitimacy of an appeal court interfering with the factual assessment made by a specialist tribunal relying on an error of law.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. The Court of Appeal had been wrong to substitute its own judgment of the facts. The AIT’s assessment of the significance of the claimant’s lies was not made in any error of law allowing the CA to replace its own judgment. It was to be particularly acknowledged that distinguishing lies from truth was difficult where, as in this case, others in a similar position might have been subject to the same threat on return as was asserted by the claimant.

Judges:

Lord Phillips (President), Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Sir John Dyson SC

Citations:

[2010] UKSC 49, UKSC 2010/0114, [2011] 2 All ER 65

Links:

Bailii, SC Summary, SC, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – GM (Eritrea) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2008
The claimants sought the protection of the Refugee Convention against deportation to their native Eritrea. Their own accounts of their experiences were doubted, and they sought to rely upon the general country guidance to demonstrate the risks they . .
Appeal from – MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 15-Jan-2009
. .

Cited by:

Cited – AM (Evidence – Route of Return) Somalia UTIAC 11-Feb-2011
UTIAC (i) In HH (Somalia) v Secretary of State [2010] EWCA Civ 426 at para 84 the Court of Appeal when referring to the Claimant raising a cogent argument that there might not be a safe route of return was not . .
Cited – G v Scottish Ministers and Another SC 18-Dec-2013
The 2003 Act had been intended to make provision for those who had been in long term mental health carse, but would not need such continued are but were not either ready to survive without continuing support in the community. The claimant had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426473

Bagdanavicius, Bagdanaviciene v the Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Apr 2003

The applicants sought asylum, saying they had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment by Lithuanian Mafiosi. The claims were rejected as clearly unfounded, denying any right to an appeal.
Held: The court could examine the basis upon which the Secretary had made his decision. The Home Secretary is entitled to certify if, after reviewing the material, he is reasonably and conscientiously satisfied that the allegation must fail. In this case, after reconsideration, the claim appeared to be that the family had suffered individually at the hands of local mafiosi. This was not a reason for granting asylum within the Convention, and the Secretary of State was therefore free to conclude that the claim must fail.

Judges:

Hon Mr Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 854 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (ZL and VL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Chancellor’s Department CA 24-Jan-2003
The applicants’ claims for asylum had been rejected as bound to fail, and under the new Act, they were to be removed from the UK. If they wanted to appeal, they they would have to do so from outside the jurisdiction. The section had been brought . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Cited – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Jun-2005
The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will.
Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in . .
At First instance – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.181184

Secretary of State for The Home Department v JS (Uganda): CA 10 Oct 2019

‘This case concerns the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees (‘the Refugee Convention’) and the protection against refoulement afforded to foreign criminals subject to deportation orders, who have previously been granted refugee status linked to the refugee status of a family member. The case raises issues of construction as to the definition of ‘refugee’ under Article 1A(2) and the true construction of the ‘cessation’ provision under Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Haddon-Cave

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1670

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.642682

Makhlouf v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Nov 2016

(Northern Ireland) The appellant (born in Tunisia) was made subject to a deportation order. He had married a UK citizen and they had a child. After moving to the UK, at various times, the relationship broke down and he was convicted of several offences. The most serious was for an assault with a weapon which he said had been on Loyalist paramilitaries and had been provoked by their racist remarks. He said that a deportation would infringe his Article 8 rights
Held: There was nothing which should have prompted them to make further enquiries as to the best interests of the children. There is nothing at all to suggest that the best interests of these children require that their father should remain in the United Kingdom. Of course there will be cases where fuller inquiries are warranted or where the best interests of children do outweigh the public interest in deportation or removal. This is emphatically not one of them.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Thomas

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 59, [2017] Imm AR 538, [2017] 3 All ER 1, [2017] INLR 222, UKSC 2015/0092

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summaryd

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – Makhlouf, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 26-Nov-2014
Appeal against deportation order. He court was asked: ‘(1) Did the Secretary of State err in deciding to deport the appellant under the mandatory power conferred by section 32 of the 2007 Act?
(2) Did the Upper Tribunal err in law in failing . .
Cited – Berrehab v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Jun-1988
Family life arises ipso jure as between father and child where the child was conceived in wedlock. Divorce and separation do not bring family life between the child and the absent parent to an end, even if the divorce leads to a significant period . .
Cited – Sylvester v Austria ECHR 24-Apr-2003
Effective respect for family life required that future family relations between parent and child are not determined by the passage of time alone . .
Cited – Singh v Entry Clearance Officer New Delhi CA 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, an 8 year old boy, became part of his Indian family who lived in England, through an adoption recognised in Indian Law, but not in English Law. Though the adoption was genuine, his family ties had not been broken in India. The family . .
Cited – Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland ECHR 6-Jul-2010
(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him . .
Cited – Re H-B (Contact) CA 22-Apr-2015
F’s appeal against orders made on his application for contact refusing him direct contact.
Sir James Munby P said: ‘. . parental responsibility is more, much more than a mere lawyer’s concept or a principle of law. It is a fundamentally . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – Ferrari v Romania ECHR 28-Apr-2015
. .
Cited – Re A (A Child) CA 6-Sep-2013
In the context of an intractable contact dispute, firmer case management may be required lest the family care system itself should contribute to the failure to develop a relationship with both parents, thereby violating the child’s article 8 rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.571292

Makhlouf, Re Application for Judicial Review: CANI 26 Nov 2014

Appeal against deportation order. He court was asked: ‘(1) Did the Secretary of State err in deciding to deport the appellant under the mandatory power conferred by section 32 of the 2007 Act?
(2) Did the Upper Tribunal err in law in failing to find that the Secretary of State and First-tier Tribunal had erred in law and in refusing to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal?
(3) Did the Upper Tribunal err contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act in failing to set aside the decision to deport in the absence of any tangible evidence for any article 8(2) justification of the encroachment of the article 8 rights of the appellant’s children in circumstances where the Tribunal had not been specifically asked to address this point by the parties?’
Held: The appeal failed.
On the first issue the Court of Appeal concluded that section 32 played no part in the Secretary of State’s decision. Had it done so, it would have been unnecessary to consider para 396 of the Immigration Rules and the decision letter had made it abundantly clear that this had been taken into account – para 35 of the court’s judgment. The first ground of appeal was therefore dismissed.
The factors amply supported the conclusion that the appellant’s deportation was conducive to the public good. As to the delay this could be important but not in this case.
The court rejected the suggestion that there should have been further investigation of the impact that the deportation of the appellant might have on the lives of his children, observing that ‘these children did not require the disruption of further investigation in circumstances where a court with appropriate jurisdiction had made important decisions in relation to their welfare’.

Judges:

Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ and Gillen LJ

Citations:

[2014] NICA 86

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007 32

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Makhlouf v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
(Northern Ireland) The appellant (born in Tunisia) was made subject to a deportation order. He had married a UK citizen and they had a child. After moving to the UK, at various times, the relationship broke down and he was convicted of several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.552629

RT (Zimbabwe) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 18 Nov 2010

The apellants had sought asylum from Zimbabwe. They appealed against rejection of their claims, saying that it was wrong to require them to return to a place where hey would have to dissemble as to their political beliefs.
Held: The appeals succeeded. Carnwath LJ said that if individuals are ‘forced to lie about their absence of political beliefs, solely in order to avoid persecution, that seems to us to be covered by the HJ (Iran) principle, and does not defeat their claims to asylum’.
As to RT, the court said that the Upper Tribunal had not addressed the critical issue raised by RN since: ‘It is not enough that she would be able to ‘explain’ her lack of political activity abroad. The question is whether she would be forced to lie in order to profess loyalty to the regime, and whether she could prove it. Since she was found to be generally credible, there is no other reason to hold that she has failed to prove her case.’
For SM, the court said of para 23 of the decision of the AIT that: ‘it was not enough to hold that she would be willing to lie ‘as and when required’, if the reason for doing so would be to avoid persecution. Nor is willingness to lie the same as ability to prove loyalty to the regime. On the other hand, in view of her lack of credibility overall, it remains open to question whether her case should fail for lack of proof as in [TM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 916]. We will therefore allow the appeal and remit the case to the Upper Tribunal for redetermination.’
For AM, ‘As in the first case, the issue was not simply whether the appellant could ‘account for’ his absence in the UK. The judge failed to address the issue as to his ability to show his loyalty to the regime. Unlike RT, he has not been held to be a credible witness. Accordingly, as in the case of SM, we do not feel able to substitute our own conclusion on this issue. We will therefore allow the appeal and remit the case to the Upper Tribunal.’

Judges:

Carnwath, Lloyd, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1285, [2011] Imm AR 259, [2011] INLR 217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same SC 7-Jul-2010
The claimants sought to prevent their removal and return to their countries of origin saying that as practising homosexuals they would face discrimination and persecution. They appealed against a judgment saying that they could avoid persecution by . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.426037

Abbassi and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 12 Nov 2010

Each claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to refuse them leave to remain. They said that when deciding whether to grant leave, the defendant should have afforded the claimants the benefit of the Secretary of State’s seven years children concession policy.
Held: The claims succeeded. The respondent should retake the decisions applying the policy.

Judges:

Bidder QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2894 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Rahman CA 15-Jul-2011
Several claimants challenged the withdrawal by the respondent of the seven year child concession policy, under which families who did not have leave to be in this country, but with children who had been in this country for 7 years were, save in . .
At first instance – Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425952

Naik v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 5 Nov 2010

The claimant challenged an order preventing her visiting the UK on the grounds of it not being conducive to the public good.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin), [2011] HRLR 5

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Naik, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant challenged the decision of the respondent to revoke his entry visa, saying ‘he was to be excluded ‘for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making statements that attempt to justify terrorist activity and fostering hatred’.’
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425778

Machado v Secretary of State for the Home Deptment: CA 19 May 2005

At issue was a decision of the Home Secretary to deport on grounds of public policy a foreign national married to an EU national with a right of establishment in the United Kingdom. The substantive issue was whether the decision of the IAT to uphold the adjudicator’s rejection of an appeal against a decision to deport the appellant is sustainable. The applicant had failed in his asylum claim, and in his time here been repeatedly been convicted and imprisoned. He had now married an English woman. The Home Secretary had concluded this to be a marriage of convenience.
Held: The IAT had failed to look at the issues it was required to consider. ‘it must be considered on the issue of whether the threat to a fundamental interest to society is such that it is proportionate in all the circumstances to deport the appellant. Next, the issue of proportionality arises under Article 8 of the ECHR.’ The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a different tribunal.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 597

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 21(3)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Huang v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Mar-2005
The adjudicator’s function is effectively to retake the Home Secretary’s decision. In doing so he will have regard to the Home Secretary’s policy in relation to the deportation of offenders as a material fact but not as a substitute for or a fetter . .
Cited – Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 11-Jul-2002
The applicant had come to England on a six month visitor’s visa. She then married an English national, but her visa was not extended.
Held: The husband had business interests and activities throughout the community. The deportation of the . .
Cited – Rutili v Ministre De L’Interieur ECJ 28-Oct-1975
Europa 1. The expression ‘subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy’ in article 48 concerns not only the legislative provisions adopted by each member state to limit within its territory . .
Cited – Secretry of State for the Home Department v Akrich ECJ 23-Sep-2003
After being deported twice from England, the applicant returned secretly, married a British citizen, and sought leave to remain. He was deported, but to Ireland where his new spouse was then established. He sought to rely upon the case of Surinder . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Cited – Georgios Orfanopoulos and Others v Land Baden-Wurttemberg. ECJ 29-Apr-2004
When considering a claim to resist deportation ‘the requirement of the existence of a present threat must, as a general rule, be satisfied at the time of the expulsion.’
Europa On the interpretation of . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 7-Jul-1992
ECJ The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community and preclude . .
Cited – Nazli and Others v Stadt Nurnberg ECJ 10-Feb-2000
Europa EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for workers – Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council – Registration as duly belonging to the labour force of a Member . .
Cited – Amrohalli v Denmark ECHR 11-Jul-2002
A properly conducted examination of proportionality when considering a deportation is quite capable of producing a decision in favour of the applicant. . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.225008

Gardi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 May 2002

The applicant was an ethnic Kurd who claimed asylum, having fled Iraq.
Held: To establish a claim, he must show that because of a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, he was outside his country and unable or, because of that fear, unwilling, to avail himself of the protection of that country. The claimant said that the court had to look at the whole of Iraq, and not just one region. The court held that provided a safe way could be provided of getting there, the existence of a safe region defeated the asylum claim. However the IAT had failed to allow him a proper opportunity to state his case, and the case was remitted for rehearing.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 03-Jun-2002, Gazette 04-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 750, [2002] 1 WLR 2755

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9197) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Starred Gardi (Asylum, KAA, Internal Flight Alternative) Iraq IAT 16-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Hwez and Khadir v Secretary of State for the Home Departmentand Another Admn 29-Jul-2002
. .
See Also – Azad Gardi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) CA 22-Oct-2002
The Home Secretary sought to appeal against the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Held: The IAT had been reviewing a decision of an adjudicator in Scotland. Accordingly, any appeal against the IAT decision lay to the Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.171341