Category: Immigration

Secretary of State for The Home Department v ST (Eritrea): CA 9 Jun 2010

The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring him to recognise the respondent as a refugee and to grant permissions accordingly. His ddecision to order her return had been contrary to a finding of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Stanley Burnton LJ said that he would hold: ‘that article 32 applies only to a refugee who has been granted leave to enter and to stay in the United Kingdom. I would reject the contention that temporary admission or leave to enter for the purpose of the determination of a claim for asylum (or any other ground for claiming a right to stay) renders a stay lawful for the purpose of article 32. The purpose of article 32 is to give security of residence to a refugee who has been given the right to live in the contracting state in question.’

Judges:

May P, Longmore LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 643, [2010] 1 WLR 2858, [2010] 4 All ER 314

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tesfamichael v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 19-Dec-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to return her to Eritea despite a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that she should be given leave to remain as a refugee.
Held: The application succeeded, and ordered the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416739

LP (St Lucia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Mar 2010

Secretary of State’s appeal, with permission against the determination of the tribunal by which they allowed the respondent’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to revoke the deportation order earlier made against him.

Judges:

Laws, Sedley, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 493

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416594

B v Germany: ECJ 1 Jun 2010

ECJ Minimum standards for conditions to be fulfilled by third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees – Reasons for exclusion from refugee status – Article 12, paragraph 2 b) of Directive 2004/83 / EC – applicant’s past participation in the activities of an organization registered in the list of persons, groups and entities to which Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

Citations:

C-57/09, [2010] EUECJ C-57/09 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – B v Germany ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection – Article 12 – Exclusion from refugee status – Article 12(2)(b) and (c) – Notion of ‘serious non-political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416444

MS (AS and NV Considered) Pakistan: UTIAC 23 Apr 2010

UTIAC The effect of AS and NV [2009] EWCA Civ 1076 is to make the Tribunal the primary decision maker in an increased number of cases where a new ground is raised for the first time, but it does not have the effect of requiring the Tribunal to consider as a section 120 statement a re-formulation of the original ground on which leave to remain was sought.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 117 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416341

MH (Respondent’s Bundle: Documents Not Provided) Pakistan: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

UTIAC Rule 13 of the First Tier Tribunal Rules requires an unpublished document to be supplied to the Tribunal if it is mentioned in the Notice of, or Reasons for Refusal or if the Respondent relies on it. Because the Notice of, or Reasons for Refusal form the statement of the Respondent’s case, however, the Tribunal is likely to assume that a document mentioned in either, but not supplied to the Tribunal, is no longer relied on.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 168 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416347

AM and SS (PBS Tier 1 Joint Accounts) Pakistan: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

UTIAC A joint account bearing the name of the applicant meets the relevant evidential requirements of paras 93-96 of the Tier 1 Guidance, so further evidence of the ownership of the funds in the account is not required.

Judges:

Ockleton VP

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 169 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416342

CS (Tier 1 Home Regulator) United States of America: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

UTIAC The reference to home regulator in paragraph 96(iv) of the Tier 1 Guidance with respect to overseas financial institutions refers to the need for the institution to be regulated and not to the identity of the institution that provides the information about the account. MM (Tier 1PSW; Art 8; ‘private life’) Zimbabwe [2009] UKAIT 00037 at [12] corrected on this point.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 163 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416344

OK (Paragraph 245Z(E) Transitional Provisions Maintenance (Funds)) Ukraine: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

UTIAC 1. The Respondent’s transitional provisions in relation to Maintenance (Funds) requirements, ending on 31 October 2008, are not to be confused or conflated with the transitional provisions for Attributes and English Language for those remaining on the IGS/SEGS/FT:WISS schemes after 30 June 2008.
2. While an applicant may be entitled to the benefit of both transitional provisions where an application for Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) was made before 31 October 2008, applicants wishing to transfer from IGS/SEGS/FT:WISS to Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) whose applications were made after that date will need to meet the Maintenance (Funds) requirement in the normal way.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 166 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416348

FW (Paragraph 322: Untruthful Answer) Kenya: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

UTIAC When a direct question is asked, and answered untruthfully, there is both a false representation and a non-disclosure; and it is not open to an Appellant who gives an untruthful answer to a direct question in an application form to say that the matter was not material.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 165 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416345

MDB and Others (Article 12, 1612/68) Italy: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

TIAC (i) In London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim Case C-310/08 and Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth Case C-480/08 the European Court of Justice ECJ confirmed the principle established in the Baumbast Case C-413/99 [2002] ECR I-7091, namely that in order to confer on a child a right of residence Article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 requires only that he has lived with his parents or either one of them in a Member State while at least one of them resided there as a worker.
(ii) Although simply seeking employment may be sufficient to make an individual a worker in Union law for a limited period, it is not enough to engage Article 12, since this provision requires that the parent concerned is someone who is or has been employed in the territory of another Member State.
(iii) If there is a parent who meets the requirement of employment, then his child can acquire an Article 12 right of residence. But under the Baumbast principle such a right of residence for a child can only start to run from the date he or she begins in education; it cannot commence from the child’s date of birth.(The same is true in respect of the derived right of residence of a parent carer of such a child).
(iv) On Baumbast principles, a child in education can continue to have an Article 12 right of residence even if the said parent later ceases to be a worker.
(v) In a case concerned with an EEA decision the tribunal judge is obliged by s.84(1)(d) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to decide whether the decision breaches any of the appellants’ rights under the Community Treaties in respect of their entry to or residence in the United Kingdom; see also s.109(3). Where the decision is a refusal to issue a permanent residence card that may necessitate, in the event that refusal is found correct, considering whether the appellant was entitled nonetheless to an extended right of residence.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 161 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 84(1)(d) 109(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Baumbast and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 17-Sep-2002
The first applicant, his wife and her children had been granted leave to stay in the UK. At the time the leave was withdrawn the children were settled in schools, and were granted indefinite leave. The second applicant was the mother of children who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416346

AZ (Trafficked Women) Thailand CG: UTIAC 23 Apr 2010

UTIACp 1. Whilst former victims of trafficking in Thailand constitute members of a particular social group, not all will be at risk of serious harm on return; the risk will depend upon a number of factors and must be assessed on a case by case basis.
2. Relevant factors will include the age, marital status, domestic background, educational level, qualifications and work experience of the appellant. The availability of employment and a familial or other support network will also be significant factors.
3. Although anti-trafficking legislation has been implemented, the involvement of corrupt officials with traffickers and/or criminals has weakened the steps taken by the government to combat trafficking.

Judges:

Kekic SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 118 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416340

Cox v Turkey: ECHR 20 May 2010

ECHR The applicant alleged, in particular, that she had been deported from Turkey and a ban had been imposed on her re-entry on account of opinions she had expressed.

Judges:

Francoise Tulkens, P

Citations:

2933/03, [2010] ECHR 700, [2010] Imm AR 664, (2012) 55 EHRR 13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Cited by:

Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416279

Kiana and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 20 Apr 2010

The claimants challenge the decision of the Home Secretary to offer the first claimant support in the form of accommodation and subsequently vouchers to purchase food and essential toiletries. The first claimant declined the offer because it would require him to live separately from his partner, the second claimant, and his young daughter.

Judges:

Supperstone QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1002 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 4

Family, Immigration

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415930

HXA v The Home Office: QBD 21 May 2010

The claimant challenged as unlawful his administrative detention for 10 months pending deportation.

Judges:

King J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1177 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights 5, Immigration Act 1971 5(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
See Also – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH Admn 9-May-2008
The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415983

Birmingham City Council v Clue (Shelter intervening): CA 29 Apr 2010

The claimant had sought housing from the appellant. It had taken the view that her application for indefinite leave to remain would be refused and had rejected her application. The court had found it improper of the council to prejudge the decision of the immigration authorities. The council appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. Except only in hopeless or abusive cases, the council were neither entitled nor required to make such a judgment. Hers was not such a case.
The questions they were to answer in making the housing decision did not include many of the criteria for assessment by the Secretary of State making his decision.

Judges:

Dyson, Etherton LJJ, Sir Scott Baker

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 460, [2010] WLR (D) 109

Links:

Bailii, Times, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Immigration, Housing

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408779

MK (Iran), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 26 Nov 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – MK (Iran), Regina (on the Application Of) v the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and others CA 3-May-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – MK (Iran), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 25-Feb-2010
The appellant claimed damages arising from the delay in the processing his asylum application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408790

HH (Somalia) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 23 Apr 2010

There is no right of appeal against directions of a ‘technical’ nature in relation to the removal, such as the specifying of a particular ship or aircraft and other detailed ‘mechanics’ of return or ‘technical’ matters

Judges:

Sedley, Smith, Elias LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 426, [2010] WLR (D) 107

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408597

Saeedi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: Admn 31 Mar 2010

The claimant claimed asylum in the United Kingdom, having entered illegally hidden in a lorry. During his screening interview he claimed to have left Afghanistan on 23 November 2008 and arrived in Iran 7 days later. After that he travelled to Turkey, arriving on 5 December 2008. From Turkey he travelled through Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria and Germany before arriving in Belgium. Then he travelled to the United Kingdom. He claimed to have used an agent, to whom his uncle paid between $11,000 and $12,000, to arrange his trip to the United Kingdom. He asserted that he had been unable to claim asylum in any of the countries through which he travelled because he was, at all material times, under the control of an agent.
Held: the application was refused, but leave to appeal to the Curt of Appeal was given.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 705 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406633

Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Anirah v Same: Admn 23 May 2008

Both claimants applied to the defendant Secretary of State to have deportation orders made against them revoked on asylum or human rights grounds. These applications were rejected. Both had previously made asylum or human rights claims that were the subject of adverse determinations and unsuccessful appeals before the deportation orders were signed. Both claimed a right of appeal with suspensive effect (that is to say an appeal from within the United Kingdom) as a result of this immigration history and the proper meaning of section 92(4)(a) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Held: Only a first claim to asylum or a fresh claim will result in an in-country appeal under section 92(4).

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin), [2008] 4 All ER 798, [2009] Imm AR 61

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.268002

RS and FD (Appeals Without Grounds) Jamaica: IAT 20 Sep 2006

Where a notice of appeal is submitted without grounds, it will not normally be appropriate for extra time to be allowed for the submission of grounds. The failure to include grounds of appeal is a breach of Rule 8(1)(c) and can properly lead to determination without a hearing under Rule 15(2)(c).

Citations:

[2006] UKAIT 00064

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.245055

Parliament v Council C-540/03: ECJ 27 Jun 2006

ECJ (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) Immigration policy – Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals – Directive 2003/86/EC – Protection of fundamental rights – Right to respect for family life – Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children.

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ C-540/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.243007

WEN, Regina (On the Application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 31 Jul 2019

The Claimant challenges the Defendant’s decision, dated 11 December 2018, in which he determined that there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that she is a victim of human trafficking.

Judges:

Margaret Obi

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2104 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.640821

Miah (Section 117B NIAA 2002 – Children): UTIAC 23 Nov 2015

(i) In section 117B(1)-(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 parliament has made no distinction between adult and child immigrants.
(ii) The factors set out at section 117B(1)-(5) apply to all, regardless of age. They are not however an exhaustive list, and all other relevant factors must also be weighed in the balance. These may include age, vulnerability and immaturity.
(iii) The juridical status of the relevant Home Office ‘Immigration Directorate Instructions’ must be appreciated. While these are subservient to primary and secondary legislation and the Immigration Rules, they rank as a relevant consideration, framed in flexible terms, to be taken into account by decision makers in every case where they apply.

Judges:

McCloskey J P, Bruce UTJ

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 131 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 117B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.564156

HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 Jul 2014

HA, an Iraqi national arrived in the United Kingdom some time in 2000. He made an asylum claim in 2002 which was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. However, he remained in the United Kingdom without leave and was fined for possessing Class A and C drugs in 2005. He was later convicted on counts of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. His appeal against conviction was dismissed.
is Article 8 appeal was based in large measure on his long standing relationship with his fiance, CH, a British citizen. She gave evidence before the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal concluded that she was ‘a very impressive witness’, that their relationship was a genuine one and that it would not be reasonable to expect her to remove to Iraq: See paragraphs 88 and 94 of the determination. The Secretary of State now appealed against the allowing of HA’s appeal against the determination of the First Tier Tribunal which had dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to make an automatic deportation order against him.

Judges:

Sullivan, Black, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1304

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007 32(5), European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.548099

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v AJ (Angola): CA 17 Dec 2014

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1636

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.540226

LC (China) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Oct 2014

Appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 30th September 2013 allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which had itself allowed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against him.

Judges:

Moore-Bick, Ryder LJJ, David Richards J

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1310, [2015] Imm AR 227, [2015] INLR 302

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.537467

Kapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania): SC 10 Jul 2013

The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in the United Kingdom as an illegal immigrant, another Albanian national named Ylli Pepa, was killed. On the day after this incident the appellant left London and travelled to Glasgow, where he assumed a false Macedonian identity. It was alleged that he had been responsible for Ylli Pepa’s murder. The Metropolitan Police were unable to locate him, and he continued to live in Glasgow for the time being under that false identity.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘I would recall the Appeal Court’s interlocutor of 1 June 2012 by which it dismissed the appeal against the sheriff’s order of 20 January 2011, and remit the case to the High Court of Justiciary for further consideration. I would set aside the Appeal Court’s finding on 2 February 2012 that the proposed new evidence contained in the reports prepared by Dr Bogdani and Ms Vickers was irrelevant to the ground of appeal and ought not to be admitted. The Lord Advocate should be permitted to adduce evidence to rebut any conclusions in the appellant’s favour that may be derived from those reports and any other admissible evidence that he may lead. The appellant must remain in custody for the time being. ‘

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 48, 2013 SCL 653, 2013 GWD 25-493, [2013] 1 WLR 2324, [2013] WLR(D) 281, [2013] HRLR 31, 36 BHRC 136, 2013 SCCR 430, [2013] 4 All ER 599, 2013 SLT 743, 2013 SC (UKSC) 311, UKSC 2012/0192

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, S Summary

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At HCJ – Kapri v The Lord Advocate for and On Behalf of The Court of First Instance Judicial District of Elbasan, Albania HCJ 2-Feb-2012
The applicant objected to his proposed extradition to Albania, saying that he would not receive a fair trial. An examination of the reports disclosed that counsel for the Lord Advocate’s analysis of them was correct. None of the examples of the . .
Appeal from – Kapri v The Lord Advocate Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania HCJ 1-Jun-2012
. .
Cited – Goatley v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another HCJ 12-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – La Torre v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 8-Nov-2006
The Lord Advocate had conceded that devolution minutes were competent in proceedings under the 2003 Act. . .
Cited – Trajer v The Lord Advocate HCJ 19-Dec-2008
. .
Cited – Engler v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 4-May-2010
. .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
Cited – Mucelli, Regina (on The Application of) v The Government of Albania Admn 27-Jan-2012
Cranston J said that in his view the law and practice in Albania was such that there was no real risk that the applicant would suffer a flagrant denial of justice on his return to Albania, as he was entitled to a retrial on the merits of the case . .
Cited – Zeqaj v Government of Albania Admn 20-Feb-2013
Appeal, under section 103 from the decision to send the matter to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to consider extraditing Zeqaj to Albania to serve a sentence of 23 years in connection with murder and firearms offences. . .
Cited – Zeqaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 10-Dec-2002
The applicant had failed in his asylum application, and an order given for his repatriation. The order had however by mistake ordered his return to Albania, rather than Serbia. . .
Approved – Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department IAT 2003
The tribunal asked as to the relevance of the possible mistreatment of the applicant if returned to his home country: ‘The reason why flagrant denial or gross violation is to be taken into account is that it is only in such a case – where the right . .
Cited – Mamatkulov And Askarov v Turkey ECHR 4-Feb-2005
Grand Chamber – while there may have been reasons for doubting whether the applicants would receive a fair trial, there was not sufficient information to show that any possible irregularities in the trial were liable to constitute a flagrant denial . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .

Cited by:

See Also – Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate (For The Republic of Albania) HCJ 25-Apr-2014
. .
See Also – Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate, Re In The Application By (Albania) HCJ 17-Jun-2014
. .
Cited – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Immigration, Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.512252

AB, Re Judicial Review: SCS 5 Feb 2013

Application for Judicial Review of a decision by the United Kingdom Border Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 3 May 2012 refusing to treat the petitioner’s further submissions as a fresh claim, etcetera

Judges:

Lord Stewart

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.470818

IR (Sri Lanka) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Jun 2011

The court considered a generic point of principle concerning the requirements of procedural fairness when the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) is considering cases concerning the removal or exclusion of foreign nationals on national security grounds.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Thomas , Black LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 704, [2012] 1 WLR 232, [2011] 4 All ER 908, [2011] UKHRR 988, [2011] ACD 102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.441050

Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 12 Mar 2010

The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless.

Judges:

Mummery, Maurice Kay, Hooper LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 212

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At CA (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At Admn (1) – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .

Cited by:

See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
See Also – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
See Also – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At CA – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.403470

Bolbol (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice): ECJ 4 Mar 2010

ECJ Minimum conditions to be fulfilled by persons from third countries or stateless persons in order to be able to claim refugee status – Stateless person of Palestinian origin – Conditions under which refugee status is accorded Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83/EC.

Citations:

C-31/09, [2010] EUECJ C-31/09 – O

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/83/EC

Cited by:

Opinion – Bolbol (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) ECJ 17-Jun-2010
ECJ Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees – Stateless person of Palestinian origin who has not sought protection or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.403432

Detention Action v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Others: Admn 12 Jun 2015

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1689 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Lord Chancellor v Detention Action CA 29-Jul-2015
The claimant challenged the legality of the Fast Track Rules 2014 which govern appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against refusals by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) of asylum applications. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.548102

Thebo, Regina (on The Application of) v Entry Clearance Officer Islamabad (Pakistan): Admn 5 Feb 2013

‘There are two questions which I have to answer on this application for judicial review. First, are paragraphs 320(7A) and (7B) of the Immigration Rules unlawful so that the relevant decisions of the Entry Clearance Officer made under them cannot stand? Second, was the claimant dishonest in her application for entry clearance?’

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 146 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.470748

T, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 10 Feb 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary refusing to treat his additional submissions as giving rise to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, HC 395. He further asserts there was a material failure to consider the factors set out in paragraph 395C of the rules.

Judges:

Parker J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 557 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.430547

Abdullah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 29 Jan 2010

The claimant had secured entry from the Sudan. He had been convicted and served time for serious offences, and was to be deported. The Sudanese authorities denied his nationality and he had served the equivalent of six years imprisonment pending deportation. He now sought judicial review of the refusal of his release from administrative detention.

Judges:

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 259 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Crime, Prisons

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.402725

Myckoo (Jamaica), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 2 Mar 2010

Appeal by a Jamaican citizen, who has been deported, against a decision dismissing his claim that certain submissions on behalf of the appellant amounted to a fresh claim.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter, Maurice Kay, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 160

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401973

MT, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon: CA 21 Jan 2010

Renewed application for permission to appeal against the refusal to grant permission to the applicant, MT, to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Judges:

Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Children, Immigration

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396705

Jenner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 14 Jan 2010

The court was asked whether the defendant’s decision not to grant the claimant leave to remain under her Human Protection policy was unlawful as being inconsistent with the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT).

Judges:

R Purchas QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396622