Category: Immigration

OT (Ankara Agreement Students, Businessmen, Workers) Turkey: UTIAC 15 Sep 2010

HC 510 contains no provision entitling a person admitted as a student to remain (or seek leave to remain) as a businessman; R (Payir and others) v SSHD has no application to those who are, or claim to be, businessmen as distinct from ‘workers’.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 330 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425491

VN (EEA Rights – Dependency) Macedonia: UTIAC 22 Oct 2010

UTIAC The judgment in Pedro [2009] EWCA Civ 1358 establishes that in respect of family members who are dependent direct relatives as defined by Article 2.2(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC, proof of dependence in the host Member State (the United Kingdom) can suffice for them to qualify for a right of residence. However, this judgment does not have application to the case of ‘Other family members’ (OFMs) as defined by Article 3.2(a) of the Directive. In order to establish a right of residence the latter are required to show both dependence in the country from which they have come and dependence in the UK.

Judges:

Storey J

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 380 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425497

RB (Linguistic Evidence SPRAKAB) Somalia: UTIAC 15 Sep 2010

1 Linguistic analysis reports from Sprakab are entitled to considerable weight. That conclusion derives from the data available to Sprakab and the process it uses. They should not be treated as infallible but evidence opposing them will need to deal with the particular factors identified in the report.
2 Recordings of all material derived from the appellant and used as material for linguistic analysis should be made available to all parties if the analysis is to be relied on in the Tribunal.
3 Sprakab linguists and analysts are not to be required to give their names (as distinct from their identifiers, experience and qualifications) unless there is a good reason particular to the individual case.

Judges:

CMG Ockleton VP, Perkins, McKee SIJJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At UTIAC – Secretary of State for Home Department v MN and KY SC 6-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the use of linguistic analysis (provided by SPRAKAB) as evidence in immigration cases so as to identify the origin of an appellant.
Held: The Practice Directions already provided guidance on the use and admission of . .
Appeal from – RB (Somalia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 13-Mar-2012
The appellant claimed asylum on the basis that she was a member of the Bajuni minority clan from Koyama, an island in Somalia. If that was true, she risked persecution from the majority clan. She appealed against an adverse finding based in part on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Evidence

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425492

HM and Others (Article 15(C)) Iraq CG: UTIAC 22 Sep 2010

UTIAC Rule 9(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, which provides for UNHCR participation in Upper Tribunal proceedings as an intervener in an ‘asylum case’, is to be construed purposively to include subsidiary (humanitarian) protection.
In deciding whether to accept an application by an appellant to withdraw an appeal in an asylum-related case which the parties have previously agreed was suitable for fresh Tribunal country guidance, particularly relevant will be the importance to the public interest of the Tribunal assisting immigration judges, primary decision-makers and litigants in giving such guidance wherever it is possible and reasonably practical to do so.
The Tribunal may decide that permission to adduce an expert report on a country guidance case shall be given on the basis that the report is disclosed to the Upper Tribunal irrespective of whether the commissioning party intends to call the witness.
Following Elgafaji, Case C-465/07, BAILII: [2009] EUECJ C-465/07 and QD (Iraq) [2009] EWCA Civ 620, in situations of armed conflict in which civilians are affected by the fighting, the approach to assessment of the level of risk of indiscriminate violence must be an inclusive one, subject only to the need for there to be a sufficient causal nexus between the violence and the conflict.
The degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the current armed conflict taking place in Iraq is not at such a high level that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that any civilian returned there, would, solely on account of his presence there face a real risk of being subject to that threat.
If the figures relating to indices such as the number of attacks or deaths affecting the civilian population in a region or city rise to unacceptably high levels, then, depending on the population involved, Article 15(c) might well be engaged, at least in respect of the issue of risk in that area, although it is emphasised that any assessment of real risk to the appellant should be one that is both quantitative and qualitative and takes into account a wide range of variables, not just numbers of deaths or attacks.
If there were certain areas where the violence in Iraq reached levels sufficient to engage Article 15(c) the Tribunal considers it is likely that internal relocation would achieve safety and would not be unduly harsh in all the circumstances.
The evidence relating to UK returns of failed asylum seekers to Iraq in June 2010 does not demonstrate that the returns process will involve serious harm. Further, it is significant that UKBA is already taking steps to improve procedures in the light of concerns expressed by UNHCR and others over the two charter flights in that month.
So far as concerns UK enforced returns to Iraq, the Tribunal is not satisfied that recent problems demonstrate that the process results in serious harm.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 331 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425490

SK (Article 1F(A) Exclusion) Zimbabwe: UTIAC 15 Sep 2010

UTIAC 1. Article 7.1 of the Statute of the International Criminal Courts, the Rome Statute, is usually regarded as providing the best working definition of a crime against humanity for the purposes of Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention.
2. Where the act or crime does not involve the specifically listed forms of acts or crimes, in order to consider that a crime against humanity had occurred, the Tribunal must consider if the acts participated in by the appellant were of a ‘similar character’ to those specified in Article 7.1(a) to (j) of the Rome Statute. In so doing, the Tribunal must consider the specific purpose of the crime, its intent and effect, the participation of an appellant in the crime and if needs be whether the appellant made a substantial contribution to the crime.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 327 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425493

BK (Deportation S 33 ‘Exception’ Ukba 2007 Public Interest) Ghana: UTIAC 15 Sep 2010

Where an appellant is subject to a decision to make a deportation order following a criminal conviction, is not subject to automatic deportation under s.32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (‘UKBA 2007’) because he comes within one of the ‘exceptions’ set out in s.33, relevant case law decided in respect of pre-UKBA 2007 deportations remains applicable.
In such a case, in line with the Court of Appeal guidance in N (Kenya) [2004] EWCA Civ 104, the immigration judge must attach weight to the Secretary of State’s view of the public interest in arriving at his conclusion.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 328 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425489

Benkaddouri v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2003

Meaning and ambit of the provision in rule 33 of the Immigration and Asylum (Procedure) Rules 2000 that in the case of a failure by the Home Office to comply with a procedural direction the adjudicator may allow an asylum-seeker’s appeal without considering its merits.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1250, [2004] INLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425375

SO, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: CA 12 Oct 2010

The court was asked upon whom falls the financial burden of providing accommodation to an eighteen year old asylum seeker who is also a ‘former relevant child’, to the extent that his welfare requires it, where the asylum seeker is not in education or training. Does it fall upon the local authority, pursuant to its duty under s.23C(4)(c) of the Children Act 1989, as amended, hereinafter ‘the Act’, or does it fall upon the National Asylum Support Service hereinafter ‘NASS’, and thus upon the Secretary of State, pursuant to her powers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999?

Judges:

Jacob, Leveson, Tomplinson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1101, [2011] 1 WLR 1283, [2011] 1 FLR 734, [2011] PTSR 549, [2011] BLGR 1, [2011] HLR 4, [2011] Fam Law 24, (2010) 13 CCL Rep 591

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SL v Westminster City Council SC 9-May-2013
The applicant for assistance from the respondent Council under the 1948 Act was a destitute, homeless failed asylum seeker. He had been admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, but the Council had maintained that his condition was part of and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Children, Local Government

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424981

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bostanci: QBD 13 Apr 1999

A person being interviewed as part of an application for asylum has no right as such to have his own interpreter present, just as he has no right to a lawyer. However the refusal of consent to an interpreter must be exercised only for good reason.

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.87834

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Demiraj and Another: QBD 26 Mar 1998

Differences in implementation of Convention between different countries were permissible and didn’t make third country policies unacceptable.

Citations:

Times 26-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.87841

YM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 19 Aug 2010

The appellant sought leave to appeal against an order for his deportation. He had overstayed after expiry of his exceptional leave to remain, and had been convicted of several less serious offences. He was now in administrative detention pending deportation.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424797

MXL, Regina (on The Application of) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 30 Sep 2010

The claimant sought judicial review and a declaration as to damages saying that her detention by immigration authorities had been unlawful.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2397 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424780

Abdi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2010

The respondent appealed against an order for the release of the claimant from administrative detention, saying that the court should have disregarded when calculating the length of the detention, and time spent awaiting the appeal.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer, Peter Smith LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424783

Begum, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another: SC 26 Feb 2021

Judges:

Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 7

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Admn – Begum v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Feb-2020
Challenge to refusal of entry clearance to be allowed to fight decision to withdraw citizenship.
Held: The court granted permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed the substantive claim for judicial review of the LTE decision. . .
Appeal from (CA) – Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others CA 16-Jul-2020
Return To UK to fight Citizenship Withdrawal
The appellant had, as a 15 year old, left to go to Iraq to be the ISIL terrorist group. She married an ISIL fighter and they had three children, the last one dying. Her citizenship of the UK had been withdrawn by the respondent leaving an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.658967

Begum v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 7 Feb 2020

Challenge to refusal of entry clearance to be allowed to fight decision to withdraw citizenship.
Held: The court granted permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed the substantive claim for judicial review of the LTE decision.

Judges:

Elisabeth Laing J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 74 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others CA 16-Jul-2020
Return To UK to fight Citizenship Withdrawal
The appellant had, as a 15 year old, left to go to Iraq to be the ISIL terrorist group. She married an ISIL fighter and they had three children, the last one dying. Her citizenship of the UK had been withdrawn by the respondent leaving an . .
At Admn – Begum, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another SC 26-Feb-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.648139

RR (Challenging Evidence) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 25 Aug 2010

UTIAC In a case where there are obvious but not necessarily determinative difficulties in an appellant’s oral evidence the Tribunal is likely to be helped considerably by independent expert evidence that supports the appellant’s story.
If the respondent seeks to challenge such evidence then, ideally, the challenge should be supported by evidence put before the Tribunal.
If the appellant or expert chooses to give oral evidence then the respondent’s cross examination should fearlessly and clearly include the suggesting to the appellant or expert that, for example, an injury was not caused in the way alleged by the appellant but by a different mechanism.
If the respondent does not put its case clearly it may well be very difficult for the Tribunal to decide against an appellant who has not been given an opportunity to deal with the respondent’s concern.
If a party has no basis for challenging evidence so that a challenge to the evidence would appear to be abusive or foolish then that party must think very carefully before making the challenge. It will probably be fairer to abandon the point.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 274 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422373

CDS (PBS ‘Available’ Article 8) Brazil: UTIAC 25 Aug 2010

UTIAC Funds are ‘available’ to a claimant at the material time if they belong to a third party but that party is shown to be willing to deploy them to support the claimant for the purpose contemplated.
Article 8 does not give an Immigration Judge a free-standing liberty to depart from the Immigration Rules, and it is unlikely that a person will be able to show an article 8 right by coming to the UK for temporary purposes. But a person who is admitted to follow a course that has not yet ended may build up a private life that deserves respect, and the public interest in removal before the end of the course may be reduced where there are ample financial resources available.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 305 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422371

FA and AA (PBS Effect of Pankina) Nigeria: UTIAC 25 Aug 2010

UTIAC The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pankina is not limited to the ‘three-month rule’ in relation to evidence of funds. Policy Guidance does not have the status of Immigration Rules for the purposes of immigration appeals.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 304 (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: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422372

Steven O Omojudi v United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Nov 2009

The claimant had been convicted of a sex offence and ordered to be deported after his release from prison. He had lived in the UK for 26 years and had a family.
Held: The deportation order was disproportionate. The measures complained of interfered with both the applicant’s private life and his family life, and were not necessary for the prevention of crime. Knowing of the claimant’s offending history the respondent had in 2005 granted indefinite leave to remain, and it followed that the respondent could only rely on subsequent offences. There were none.

Judges:

L Garlicki, P and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, L. Mijovic, P. Hirvela, L. Bianku and N. Vucinic

Citations:

[2009] ECHR 1942, Times 15-Dec-2009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Steven O Omojudi v United Kingdom ECHR 28-Nov-2008
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Ngouh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 27-Aug-2010
The claimant, a Cameroon national, sought to challenge the refusal of indefinite leave to remain. He had served in the British Army in Iraq, and lived here for over ten years. However when serving he had been convicted of a minor sexual assault in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422127

SD (Paragraph 320(11): Forgery) India: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC If an application for entry clearance is refused on the ground of forged documents in a previous application, the Entry Clearance Officer has the burden of proof. If there was (in relation to the previous application) no judicial determination of the issue, and no relevant admission, there will need to be evidence to establish that the documents used in the previous application were forged.

Judges:

Ockleton VP, Roberts SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 276 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421576

VN (Chicago Convention S.86, ) Iran: UTIAC 18 Aug 2010

UTIAC The removal of an alien stated in a reasons for refusal letter as under the provisions of the Chicago Convention but which would be lawful under paras 8-10 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act cannot be regarded as unlawful by reference either to that Convention or the relevant IDIs, because of the mandatory provisions of s.86(4) of the 2002 Act.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 303 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421577

LD (Article 8 Best Interests of Child) Zimbabwe: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC 1. Consistent application of the Immigration Rules to promote the economic and social policy of the UK is a relevant factor in carrying out the balancing exercise under Article 8(2) but the weight attached to it depends on the context of the case, whether there was ever any claim under the rules for indefinite leave to remain, and why such claim was not accepted.
2. In the particular circumstances of this case the weight to be attached to enforcement of immigration control was small in the light of the misdirection as to Paragraph 320 (7A), and the fact that the paragraph applies to all cases whether there is family life deserving respect or not.
3. The interests of minor children and their welfare are a primary consideration. A failure to treat them as such will violate Article 8(2).
4. Weighty reasons would be required to justify separating a parent from a lawfully settled minor child or child from a community in which he or she had grown up and lived for most of his or her life. The general situation in the relevant home country is also relevant, especially if it is known that the conditions there are dire (as they are, for example, in Zimbabwe at present).
5. In this particular case, no useful purpose would have been served if the appellant is required to depart the UK in order to make an entry clearance from abroad. All the issues are to be determined in this appeal rather than in the course of an investigation abroad where there would in any event be an interference.

Judges:

Blake J, P, Ward SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 278 (IAC), [2011] Imm AR 99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Europsan Convention on Human Rights 8(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421569

RG (Automatic Deport Section 33, (A) Exception) Nepal: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC When considering the automatic deportation provision in s. 32(5) UK Borders Act 2007, and the exemption at s.33(2)(a) relating to the claimant’s private and family life (Article 8 ECHR), the Tribunal must give careful consideration to the factors set out at paragraphs 70-73 of Maslov v Austria [2009] INLR 47 ECHR.
Particular care is required in relation to the consideration of the Article 8 ECHR impact on those who were lawfully resident in the UK at the time when the offence was committed.

Judges:

Blake J P, Eshun SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 273 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421575

KD (Inattentive Judges) Afghanistan: UTIAC 30 Jul 2010

UTIAC 1. The parties to an appeal are entitled to expect the Judge both to be alert during the hearing and to appear to be so. Consequently, if a Judge actually falls asleep or gives the appearance of not giving the appeal his full attention, there may be grounds for setting aside the determination on the basis that there has not been a fair hearing.
2. It is preferable for any concern about the behaviour or inattention of the Judge to be raised at the hearing.
3. When such a ground of appeal is raised, it is only likely to succeed if there is cogent evidence of the actual or apparent behaviour in question.

Judges:

Nicol J, Perkins SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 261 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Natural Justice

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421565

FH (Post-flight spouses: Iran) v Entry Clearance Officer, Tehran: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UKIAT The Immigration Rules make no provision for the admission of post-flight spouses of refugees with limited leave. The Rules should be changed. In the mean time it is most unlikely that it will be proportionate to refuse the admission of the spouse of a refugee where all the requirements of paragraph 281 are met save that relating to settlement.Immigration Rules cannot be the subject of a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and in any event, a Tribunal has no power to make such a declaration.

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Ockleton P J, Perkins SIJ

Citations:

[2011] Imm AR 29, [2010] UKUT 275 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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.

Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421568

MB (Article 8 Near Miss) Pakistan: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC In an Article 8 case, when balancing the demands of fair and firm immigration control against the disruption of the family or private life of a person if removed for non-compliance with the Immigration Rules, the nature and degree of the non-compliance may well be significant.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 282 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421571

PS (Working Holidaymaker Maintenance Assessment) India: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC There is no single, proper test to be applied when assessing the adequacy of maintenance in a working holidaymaker appeal.
The onus is on the appellant to show that he can meet the requirements of para95(v) of HC395. It is for him to explain his plans and how he proposes to maintain and accommodate himself without recourse to public funds.
Whether those proposals are practical can be assessed against any reliable evidence of the likely costs subject to ensuring that a true comparison can be made. However, any such evidence is a guide only and cannot be treated in itself as determinative or as displacing or putting a gloss on the wording of the rule itself.

Judges:

Ouseley J, Latter SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 280 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421574

BN (Psychiatric Evidence Discrepancies) Albania: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC (1) The Tribunal is entitled to reject a clinical diagnosis that an appellant suffers from a depressive illness but it must give clear reasons for doing so which engage adequately with a medical opinion representing the judgment of a professional psychiatrist on what he has seen of the appellant.
(2) In the present case where the psychiatric evidence was being relied on to provide an explanation for admitted discrepancies in the appellant’s evidence, the psychiatrists’ comment on the role of depression in explaining inconsistencies could not and did not even purport to deal with all the aspects of the claim which the Immigration Judge had found incredible.
(3) On the facts of the present case even taking the diagnosis as correct, it provided no reasonable explanation for the many aspects of the appellant’s evidence and behaviour which led to the rejection of his claim as credible. Accordingly, if there were any error of law in what the Immigration Judge had concluded in relation to the diagnosis, the error had no effect on the result.

Judges:

Ouseley J, Latter SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 279 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421566

M (Chen Parents: Source of Rights) Ivory Coast: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC The rights of entry and of residence of parents of EU national children derived by the ECJ in Chen are a matter of EU free movement law. National courts are therefore obliged to recognise them, and national legislation cannot reduce them.

Judges:

Blake J P

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 277 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421570

MK (Deportation Foreign Criminal Public Interest) Gambia: UTIAC 10 Aug 2010

UTIAC (1) In automatic deportations made under s.32 (5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 the respondent’s executive responsibility for the public interest in determining whether deportation is conducive to the public good has been superseded by Parliament’s assessment of where the public interest lies in relation to those deemed to be foreign criminals within s.32(1)-(3). In consequence the respondent’s view of the public interest has no relevance to an automatic deportation.
(2) In such cases by virtue of s32(4) it is not open to an appellant to argue that his deportation is not conducive to the public good nor is it necessary for the respondent to argue that it is.
(3) The seriousness of an offence and the public interest are factors of considerable importance when carrying out the balancing exercise in article 8. As Parliament has now determined where the public interest lies in cases of automatic deportation, that factor must be taken into account together with the Tribunal’s own assessment of the seriousness of the offence. The gravity of criminal offending will normally be clear from the facts and nature of the offence, the views expressed by the sentencing judge and, importantly, the actual sentence.

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Latter, Ward SIJJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 281 (IAC), [2011] Imm AR 60

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421572

HA and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 28 Jul 2010

The claimants sought damages in false imprisonment, saying that their detention in an immigration centre had been unlawful because their removal was not ‘imminent’.

Judges:

McCombe J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1940 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421258

TM (Zimbabwe) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2010

In each case the appellant sought asylum, and now argued that it was not right for the AIT to reject their claims, failing to follow the country guidance set out in RN.

Judges:

Ward, Rix, Elias LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 916

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG AIT 19-Nov-2008
AIT 1. Those at risk on return to Zimbabwe on account of imputed political opinion are no longer restricted to those who are perceived to be members or supporters of the MDC but include anyone who is unable to . .

Cited by:

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: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421211

W (Algeria) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 29 Jul 2010

A potential witness offered evidence but only if his identity and evidence could be kept permanently secret. He feared torture and retribution from the authorities in Algeria.
Held: Such a promise could not be made. It would leave the respondent in an impossible position where, for example, the information disclosed a threat of future terrorist activity.
Sir David Keene said: ‘Mr Tam QC, on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepts that SIAC could give directions under the Procedure Rules preventing the Secretary of State from disclosing such material to any other person, including the Algerian authorities. He acknowledges that SIAC’s power under rule 39 (1) to ‘give directions relating to the conduct of any proceedings’ is expressed in wide and unlimited terms and could be used in conjunction with the rule 43(2) power to conduct a hearing in private for any good reason so as to prevent disclosure to other persons, including the authorities of the appellant’s country of origin’, but concluded that: ‘[I]t is not open to SIAC to make an order giving the absolute and irrevocable guarantee which is sought by the appellants. This may create a difficulty for the appellants, because of the reluctance of their potential witnesses, but it is inescapable. The adverse effect on them can be mitigated by such steps as anonymity orders and hearings in private, but irrevocable orders preventing the Secretary of State from disclosing material to a foreign state in any circumstances cannot properly be made by SIAC in advance of the Secretary of State seeing that material. As counsel for the Secretary of State said at the SIAC hearing, such a proposal is unworkable and in my view falls outside the scope of SIAC’s powers to give directions, broad though those powers are.’

Judges:

Jacob,Sullivan LJJ, Sir David Keene

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 898

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – W (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 7-Mar-2012
Each of the three appellants, suspected of terrorist activity, objected to their proposed return to Algeria on deportation, saying that it was accepted that torture was routinely used against people in their position, and without redress. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421119

Qaderi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 13 May 2008

Asylum claim under false name – long detention pending decision on deportation.

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1033 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rostami, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 7-Aug-2009
The claimant had been detained for nearly three years while his application for asylum was determined. He sought judicial review, saying that the detention was unlawful. Whilst in detention he had self harmed and said: ‘I will stay in detention for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.267662

Mapere, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 3 Jul 2000

To establish a legitimate expectation, the assurances relied on should be assurances that have been given by the decision-maker: ‘it would be wrong in principle for courts to rule that a decision-maker’s discretion should be limited by an assurance given by some other person’.

Judges:

Sulivan J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 633 (Admin), [2001] Imm AR 89

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL 30-Apr-2008
The House considered whether the Secretary of State for Health acted lawfully in issuing guidance as to the employment of foreign doctors to employing bodies within the National Health Service in April 2006.
Held: The secretary of state’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.267630

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

(Iran) ‘Does it amount to persecution according to these broad tests if the clandestine character of the homosexual activity which there has been in the past and will be on return in the future is itself the product of fear engendered by discriminatory legislation or policing which itself violates the individual’s human rights?’
Held: The case was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Judges:

Buxton, Maurice Kay LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1238, [2007] Imm AR 73

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.245064

Collaku v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 9 Nov 2005

Collins J criticised the system under which an applicant might be informed one day of his intended removal from the UK on the following day, saying: ‘The Home Office practice involving delay in deciding a claim but then of arresting and serving the refusal at one and the same time with a view to removal within a day or two, often at weekends and frequently early in the morning, is one that is to be deplored this court has deplored it on many occasions. It leads to unnecessary applications to the duty judge. It has the effect of preventing those who are to be removed from seeking proper legal advice to which they may be entitled and, even if the Home Office takes the view that there is no conceivable merit to be both found in any possible challenge, this is not the way to go about it. A reasonable time must be provided to enable representations to be made, if any are to be made, certainly to enable advice to be sought if the person to be removed wishes to obtain it. Quite apart from anything else, the approach to the duty judge will almost inevitably result in an order preventing the removal until the matter can be sorted out, either the following day or the next working day, when an application can be put before the Administrative Court. The result is that the flight ticket has to be given up — it is often more than one ticket because frequently an official will accompany the person to be removed — so public money is inevitably wasted.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2855 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Immigration, Natural Justice

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.237826

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 resisted an order for his return to India.
Held: The Adjudicator was entitled to conclude that family life was established on the facts of this case. There were substantial links between the sponsors and the appellant, and the adoption, although not recognised by UK law, was a further factor which militated in favour of family life. However narrow and technical the question we have ultimately to decide, the case before us cannot be viewed in isolation from its particular social, cultural and religious setting, and ‘in our multi-cultural and pluralistic society the family takes many forms.’ The Appeal was allowed. And te boy should stay with his adoptive parents in England.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Mr Justice Munby Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1075, Times 15-Sep-2004, [2005] 2 WLR 325, [2004] 3 FCR 72, [2005] Fam Law 9, [2004] INLR 515, [2004] Imm AR 672, [2005] 1 FLR 308, [2005] QB 608

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – X and Y v United Kingdom ECHR 1978
(Commission) A boy of 14, X’s nephew, was adopted under Indian law by two Sikhs, who were UK citizens. He was 14 years when adopted. He had been denied entry clearance into the UK on the grounds that, even if the adoption was valid according to . .
Cited – Ahmut v The Netherlands ECHR 28-Nov-1996
The bond between natural parents and their children is a strong indicator of the existence of family life: ‘from the moment of the child’s birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to ‘family life’, . .
Cited – Lebbink v The Netherlands ECHR 1-Jun-2004
‘The existence or non-existence of ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8 is essentially a question of fact depending upon the real existence in practice of close personal ties’ and ‘The Court recalls that the notion of ‘family life’ under . .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
Cited – X, Y and Z v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-1997
The court refused to find that the failure of United Kingdom law to recognise a female to male trans-sexual as the father of a donor insemination child, born to his partner and brought up as their child, was a breach of their rights to respect for . .
Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Alhaji Mohamed v Knott 1969
A 26 year old Nigerian Muslim man who entered into a potentially polygamous marriage in Nigeria with a Nigerian girl aged 13; both were domiciled in Nigeria and the marriage was valid according to Nigerian law.
Held: The marriage was capable . .
Cited – In Re E (Children) (Abduction: Non-Convention Country) CA 7-Jul-1999
Where a child has been abducted from a country which has not signed the Convention on abduction of children, an English court should be very reluctant to apply English cultural traditions in substitution for those of the home country. Exceptions . .
Cited – Boyle v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Feb-1994
The court considered whether a family relationship could exist where the individuals were not cohabiting: ‘cohabitation is . . not a prerequisite for the maintenance of family ties which are to fall within the scope of the concept of ‘family life’. . .
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 – Re J (Adoption: Non-Patrial) CA 1998
The court considered an adoption in Pakistan which was valid in Pakistan but would not be recognised here. The natural father and the adoptive father were from the same family. The adoptive parents were unable to have a children of their own, and . .
Cited – Re M (Adoption: International Adoption Trade) FD 7-Mar-2003
A baby was for all practical purposes waved through immigration control because it had been adopted, with judicial sanction, in the United States of America and the adoption was accordingly recognised in this country. The adoption was a disaster for . .
Cited – Kroon And Others v The Netherlands ECHR 27-Oct-1994
Neither marriage nor living together were necessarily a requirement for establishing family ties, exceptionally other factors may . . serve to demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto ‘family ties’. The . .
Cited – Keegan v Ireland ECHR 26-May-1994
The mother and father were not married, and their relationship broke up before the birth of the child, and the father was excluded from seeing the baby after the first time in hospital. He sought guardianship, and objected to his exclusion from . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Charlton Thomson and Others) v Secretary of State for the Department of Skills and Education Admn 4-Jul-2005
The claimants complained of the respondent’s decision to suspend temporarily but without notice all further inter-country adoptions from Cambodia.
Held: There were proper concerns about a major humanitarian crisis for orphaned children and for . .
Cited – 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

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.199795

FA (Iraq) and PD (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Jun 2010

Judges:

Sullivan LJ, Sir Mark Waller

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 827

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421033

QI (Para 245Zx(I) Considered) Pakistan: UTIAC 6 Jul 2010

UKIAT The expression ‘current . . leave to remain’ in para 245ZX(I) of the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 395 as amended must refer to an applicant’s/appellant’s substantive period of limited leave. Were it to denote extended leave under s.3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (‘s.3C leave’), the expression would be meaningless. Further, at the time the applicant made his application, his leave could only have been his substantive leave; any s.3C leave could not come into being until after he received a decision. That is because s.3C leave does not arise until ‘the leave expires without the application for variation having been decided’ (s.3C(c)).

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 217 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420262

Karakuyu, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 6 May 2008

The claimant sought to challenge decisions by the defendant in June 2005, to reject the claimant’s application for leave to remain on the basis of his marriage and to treat certain further representations that had been made by the claimant as a fresh claim for asylum.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1147 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.268718

Nadanasikamani v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 Jan 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – PS (Ltte, Internal Flight, Sufficiency of Protection) Sri Lankan CG IAT 28-Oct-2004
. .
Approved – Sinnarasa, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 19-May-2005
Mitting J said: ‘The question which I have to consider is whether on the assumed facts I have recited the claimant cannot, on any view, succeed or her claim is so wholly lacking in substance that it is bound to fail.’ and ‘I have found this a far . .

Cited by:

Cited – Yogachandran, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Feb-2006
The applicant appealed rejection of his claim for asylum.
Held: ‘the claimant has wholly failed to demonstrate, even to the very low level of possibility which suffices to quash a certificate, that there is any risk to him if he is returned to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.239102

Regina (Kpangni) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 21 Apr 2005

The asylum seeker appealed rejection of her request not to be returned home. The decision letter had applied the test under Hariri.
Held: The decision letter invoked the wrong test. Since the Hariri case the case of Batayav had clarified the correct standard. The applicant did not need to show a probability of harm but rather a real risk, which was a lower threshold. Had the letter not reffered to the standard to be applied, the decision might have still been correct, but it could not stand.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 03-May-2005, [2005] EWHC 881 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Zorig Batayav v the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The case of Hariri had set too high the threshold for the level of threat which would need to apply as to the propriety of returning an asylum applicant to his home country. The correct test is that the applicant need show a ‘real risk’ of har. This . .
Cited – Hariri v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-May-2003
It would be inappropriate to order the return of a failed asylum seeker to a country where there was a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violation of fundamental human rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.224896

Dbeis and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 May 2005

The applicant had appealed to the adjudicator from the Home Secretary’s decision to refuse to allow leave to remain. One of her children suffered from cerebral palsy, and she said it was necessary to stay here for her treatment and education. On appeal from the IAT, the CA held that the adjudicator should consider not only the reasonableness of the Home Secretary’s decision, but also her article 8 rights, and the proportionality of the decision.

Judges:

Chadwick, Longmore, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 584, Times 30-May-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.225004

Montoya v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 May 2002

The appellant sought refugee status. He was a wealthy man, but his life and that of his family had been threatened in Colombia unless he paid 10,000,000 pesos per month to Marxist guerillas.
Held: Such a threat was not sufficient to warrant refugee status. The threat did not arise from a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The status of being a land owner did not constitute a social group.

Citations:

Times 29-May-2002, Gazette 13-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 620

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.171243

Suarez v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 22 May 2002

The applicant for asylum had been threatened with death after witnessing a multiple murder as an army soldier. He had been already shot at before escaping.
Held: So long as an applicant can establish that one of the motives of his persecutor is a Convention ground and that the applicant’s reasonable fear relates to persecution on that ground, that will be sufficient. It was essential for an applicant to show that the reason for his persecution fell within one of the convention grounds. The applicant had not shown this, and his appeal against refusal of asylum was denied.

Judges:

Poter LJ, Keene LJ and Sumner J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 722, [2002] 1 WLR 2663

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v K, Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought asylum, fearing persecution as members of a social group. The fear of persecution had been found to be well founded, but that persecution was seen not to arise from membership of a particular social group.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.172235

FA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 18 Jun 2010

The claimant had applied both for asylum and humanitarian protection. Both claims had been rejected, but he was given leave to stay in the UK for a further year. He now sought to appeal not only against the rejection of the asylum claim but also the humanitarian protection claim.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. He could appeal against the refusal of humanitarian protection.
A person not entitled to refugee status may nevertheless be eligible for ‘subsidiary’ protection, pursuant to the Qualification Directive, if substantial grounds have been shown for believing that, if returned to his country of origin, he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm and is unable or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. The serious harm feared was real. Following Elgafaji and QD, ‘it is now tolerably clear that Article 15 is wider than Article 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Convention and to that extent is itself directly applicable in all EU countries including the United Kingdom.’

Judges:

Pill, Longmore, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 696, [2010] WLR (D) 152, [2010] 1 WLR 2545, [2011] 1 All ER 270, [2010] 3 CMLR 39

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83, Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC, Immigration Rules 339C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Cited – Elgafaji and Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie ECJ 17-Feb-2009
Europa (Grand Chamber) Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status – Person eligible for subsidiary protection Article 2(e) – Real . .
Cited – QD and AH (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-Jun-2009
. .
Cited – Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State ECJ 14-Dec-1995
It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: ‘For the purposes of . .

Cited by:

Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417083

Davis, Regina (on The Application of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission: QBD 2 Feb 2010

The applicant for judicial review (D) had been convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 3 of the 2003 Act, and recommended for deportation. He sought review of the decision of the respondent not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. A question had arisen as to the existence of any legal privilege in his relationship with court-appointed counsel
Held: The court assumed that anything so disclosed by D was in fact protected by legal privilege, and in fact there had been no material disclosure here. However it was implicit in a request to the Commission for a reference that privilege was waived. It might have been better for the Commission to have warned the applicant that an approach would be made, but issue had been settled.
The Commission had approached the court appointed counsel, and D now sought the notes of any meeting. It was not for the court in this application ‘to start making orders to counsel, who is now party to the proceedings. That is a matter between him and her, and him and the CCRC, assuming the notes still exist.’

Judges:

Elias J, Calvert-Smith J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC B14 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 3, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 38

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417093