Category: Immigration

V, Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and Another: Admn 24 Jul 2009

The applicant was brought to this country as a baby, and his family had been granted indefinite leave to remain and or citizenship. Attaining adulthood, he appealed refusal of such status because of his criminal record.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1902 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361465

S v S and others: FD 21 Aug 2008

The parties had persisted with repeated applications to prevent removal despite a succession of judges dismissing the cases presented as being without merit. Indeed further proceedings were also lodged on the day of this hearing. Nevertheless the court proceeded without concluding that these wardship proceedings were an abuse.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2288 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 241, [2009] 2 FCR 415, [2009] Fam Law 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.276704

BE (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 May 2008

Claim to international protection of a sapper from the Iranian army who in 1999 deserted rather than continue to lay anti-personnel mines in a populated part of Iranian Kurdistan where no state of war existed.
Held: On the facts of the case the claimant had met the standard required namely as to whether the point had come at which systematic and indiscriminate use by a state of lethal weapons against unarmed civilians amounted to a gross human rights abuse and an atrocity.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 540, Times 18-Jun-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.267917

Choudhrey v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 1 Aug 2001

The applicant sought to review refusal of his request to appeal in turn the refusal of his request for asylum as an Ahmadi from Pakistan. He had twice been assaulted by a non-government racist group. There was legislation having the effect of discriminating against members of the applicant’s religion, but the adjudicator found no government persecution. She also found that he had been able to live in peace with his brother elsewhere. The treatment was found not been sufficient to constitute a well-founded fear of persecution. The Adjudicator had set the standard for persecution too high. It was not capable of definition, but need not be fear for his life as implied. This was a sufficient misdirection in law to require the decision to be quashed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 613

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Malik v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1993
. .
Cited – Regina (Puspalatha) v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal 2001
. .
Applied – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.140359

Regina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 9 Aug 2001

The Home Secretary had served notice that the applicant was an illegal immigrant, and liable to deportation. An order had been made for the cross examination of the applicant. He had come to England to study, but soon dropped his immediate plans. He left and re-entered claiming an intention to start an alternative course. He married, but abandoned his studies. He did not declare his intentions of marrying on returning, but was not asked.
Held: There can be deception by silence, but there is no positive duty of candour on the part of a person seeking to enter approximating to a duty of utmost good faith. The decision was however consistent with and supported by his own behaviour, and the notice stood.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

Citations:

[2001] 1 WLR 840, [2001] EWHC Admin 632, [2001] INLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 26(1)(c)lA 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Doldur CA 2-Apr-1998
It was wrong to impute deceit to an immigrant who entered after marrying after being given leave to enter when not further questioned about status on entry. . .
Cited – Kwawaja v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1984
There is no positive duty of candour on the part of a person seeking permission to enter the country, approximating to a duty of the utmost good faith. . .
Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Anna Ford v The Press Complaints Commission Admn 31-Jul-2001
The complainant had been photographed wearing a bikini, whilst on holiday by a photographer using a long lens. She had been on a quiet part of public beach. She complained to the Press Complaints Commission who rejected her complaint. The rules . .
Cited – Farrakhan v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 1-Oct-2001
The applicant challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to exclude him from the UK, on the grounds that his presence would exacerbate tensions between the Jewish and Muslim communities. A balance is to be found between freedom of speech and the need . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Cited – Lisa Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v South Norfolk Council Admn 10-Nov-2006
The claimant gypsies had bought and moved onto land in Norfolk and stayed there in breach of planning enforcement notices. The inspector upheld the notices, but advised the Council of the difficulties in finding sites and had stayed enforcement for . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – SB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 31-Jan-2007
A Bangladeshi woman entered into an arranged polygamous marriage in Bangladesh and many years later dishonestly (led by her husband) obtained entry clearance as a visitor before then unsuccessfully seeking leave to remain as being financially . .
Cited – Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.166217

Regina (on the application of Baram etc) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 7 Sep 2001

Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not depend upon whether the detainee might abscond. It appeared that the system worked for the administrative convenience of making speedy decisions, and not because he has done anything which might usually be considered as a justification for depriving him of his liberty. None of the detainees had been told why they were being held, and misleading reasons for detention were recorded. The detention required justification under article 5 of the Convention. It would be artificial to suggest that detention was for the purposes of art 5(1)(f), and the detention was unlawful. To be lawful, detention must be justified for each individual under Article 5.1(f).

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v A Special Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte B Admn 17-Dec-1997
Kay J referred to the Secretary of State’s policy documents on the detention and removal of failed asylum seekers and emphasised the need for a careful reappraisal by the Secretary of State in the light of changing circumstances. . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Appealed to – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed CA 19-Oct-2001
The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals.
Held: The Act authorised . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed CA 19-Oct-2001
The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals.
Held: The Act authorised . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.166281

Feroz, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 10 Dec 2012

The claimants application for leave to remain had been refused in 2010. His application complied with all the requirements save that the bank statement had been printed from the internet and was not accompanied by writen confirmation from the bank. He had however failed to proceed with an appeal, and now sought judicial review.
Held: The application was refused: ‘it would be a retrograde step if the Secretary of State were to be dissuaded from responding helpfully to representations being made on behalf of claimants for fear that every time a response was written to a pre-action protocol letter it was to be treated as making another decision for the purpose of starting time running again in any claim for judicial review. ‘

Judges:

A Robinson J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 4210 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.514472

SN v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 14 Jan 2014

Extra Division, Inner House –

Judges:

Lady Clark of Calton

Citations:

[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 7, 2014 SLT 905, [2014] CSIH 71, 2014 GWD 27-534

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2 3 8, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(3)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Extra Div Inner House – McCann v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland SC 11-Apr-2017
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.520018

KA, Regina (on The Application of) v Essex County Council: Admn 18 Jan 2013

The claimant, an illegal immigrant challenged the refusal of the respondent Council to provide support to her children under the 1989 Act.

Judges:

Robin Purchas QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 43 (Admin), [2013] 1 WLR 1163, [2013] 2 FCR 319, [2013] BLGR 363, [2013] WLR(D) 60, (2013) 16 CCL Rep 63

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Children Act 1989, Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Immigration, Local Government

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.470363

MB and Others v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 1 Feb 2013

The applicants renewed their asylum claims against a background of having lied about earlier applications.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 123 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tesfay and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 4-May-2016
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.470697

West London Vocational Training College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Jan 2013

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Simon J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 31 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 17-Jul-2013
The Court was asked as to: ‘the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the current points-based system of immigration control.’ The appellant’s license to sponsor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.469800

AM (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 1 Jul 2009

The appellant had married in Somalia. His wife lived in London and sought permission for him to enter, she acting as his sponsor. The Immigration judge had found that they met all the criteria save one, that they would be able to support themselves other than by recourse to public funds. The wife was a qualified accountant, but disabled and not in work. They argued that the fact of disability required a greater justification under Human Rights Law before such a treatment.
Held: The claim failed. Elias LJ said: ‘[l]ike cases should be treated alike, and different cases treated differently. This is perhaps the most fundamental principle of justice’
‘It may well be that where a state treats a disabled person differently by reason of his disability – in domestic terms, a case of direct discrimination – it may be necessary for any justification in relation to Article 14 to be supported by particularly weighty reasons. However, as Miss Giovanetti points out, there is no Strasbourg authority which has applied that approach to justification of the equal application of a uniform rule or where an individual is contending for a right to more favourable treatment. In my judgment, it would not be appropriate for us to initiate such an approach.’

Judges:

Mummery, Maurice Kay, Elias LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 634, [2009] UKHRR 1073

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Rules 281, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Thlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The applicant was a Jehovah’s Witness who had been convicted of insubordination under the Military Criminal Code for refusing to wear a military uniform at a time of general mobilisation. He was subsequently refused appointment as a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor.
Cited – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 30-Jul-2013
Ten disabled claimants challenged the changes to the 2006 Regulations introduced by the 2012 Regulations. The changes restricted the ability to claim Housing Benefit for bedrooms deemed extra. The claimants said that in their different ways each had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347296

Duka v Duka: Admn 16 May 2003

‘When Parliament uses the expression ‘the appellant had no other legitimate purpose’, it means no more than it says: namely, that there is no good reason, no legitimate reason, for pursuing the claim, and that is because it is a bad claim, and if the Secretary of State’s view that it is a bad claim and thus there is no legitimate reason for pursuing it is correct, then he is entitled to certify.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1262 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.185333

TDT, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 29 Jul 2016

The claimant child alleged that the defendant had released him from administrative immigration detention without first putting safeguarding arrangements in place, leave him iat risk, in particular of becoming victim to human trafficking.

Judges:

McGowan J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1912 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.567874

Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Student Loans Company Ltd: Admn 17 Jul 2014

Challenge to the exclusion of the Claimant from eligibility for a student loan. The claimant said that both the settlement criterion and the lawful ordinary residence criterion constituted unjustified and discriminatory restrictions on her right to education under both article 2 of the First Protocol and article 14.
Held: Her rights had been violated by the application to her of the settlement criterion but not by the application of the lawful ordinary residence criterion.

Judges:

Hayden J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2452 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Benefits, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.534429

N v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 10 Oct 2014

‘The claimant, a national of Uganda, claims damages for unlawful immigration detention and for misfeasance in public office. The unlawful detention claim relates to the period from 12 July 2012 to 26 September 2012, the claimant’s case being that she should not have been detained because there was independent evidence that she was a victim of torture, rendering her detention contrary to the defendant’s published policy. The defendant, the Home Secretary, denies that there was independent evidence of torture in the claimant’s case. !

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3304 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.537520

Kebede and Another v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills: Admn 31 Jul 2013

The claimants challenged refusal of financial support for their studies, being immigrants with discretionary leave to remain.
Held: It was submitted ‘ that the provision of a loan to pay fees is one removed from the imposition of fees itself, and so should be taken as too remote to fall within the scope of A2P1 for the purposes of article 14.’
Held: Burnett J said: ‘that is a technical approach which does not accord with the broad view the Strasbourg Court takes on such matters. Nobody can have access to university education unless funding is found to discharge the fees. State support for the discharge of fees by way of loans will be, for a very large number of people, the only practical way of paying them. It is therefore an important feature in providing practical and effective access to university education. For this reason I do not accept that the current arrangements relating to funding are too remote from the right guaranteed by A2P1 to fall outside its ambit and therefore to be considered by reference to article 14.’

Judges:

Burnett J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2396 (Admin), [2014] PTSR 92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kebede, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle City Council Admn 15-Feb-2013
The two brothers had had their asylum claims rejected but remained with temporary discretionary leave. They now sought judicial review of the refusal to them of financial assistance to go to university. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Kebede and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle City Council CA 31-Jul-2013
The claimant challenged refusal by the defendant to provide financial support for his studies. . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.514298

Husenatu Bah v The United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Sep 2011

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 1448, 56328/07, (2012) 54 EHRR 21, [2012] HLR 2, , 31 BHRC 609

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Statement of Facts – Husenatu Bah v The United Kingdom ECHR 1-Dec-2009
Statement of Facts . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.526347

Kebede, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle City Council: Admn 15 Feb 2013

The two brothers had had their asylum claims rejected but remained with temporary discretionary leave. They now sought judicial review of the refusal to them of financial assistance to go to university.

Judges:

Timothy Straker QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 355 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 SI/2011/1986, Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Kebede and Another v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills Admn 31-Jul-2013
The claimants challenged refusal of financial support for their studies, being immigrants with discretionary leave to remain.
Held: It was submitted ‘ that the provision of a loan to pay fees is one removed from the imposition of fees itself, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.472501

Erimako, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department: Admn 31 Jan 2008

Application for judicial review of the refusal of the Home Secretary to grant leave to remain. The claim for leave and for judicial review is based on Article 8 grounds.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 312 (admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346716

ZO (Somalia), Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (MM (Burma) and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (DT (Eritrea)) v Same: CA 20 May 2009

Each claimant had made a failed asylum claim, followed by another which had not been yet determined after delay. They appealed against decisions that they were not entitled to obtainn employment.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The reception directive applied to first time asylum applicants, but ‘The definition in article 2(c) referred to an application ‘in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken’ and not to a person ‘in respect of whom a final decision has not yet been taken’.’ The opportunity for abuse if any arose only because of the defendant’s administrative backlog.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 442, Times 28-May-2009, [2009] WLR (D) 166, [2009] 1 WLR 2477

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Directive 2003/9/EC of January 27, 2003, laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – MM (Somalia) and ZO (Somalia), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jun-2008
. .
Appeal from – DT (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2008
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – ZO (Somalia) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 28-Jul-2010
The Directive gave certain rights to asylum applicants. The claimants had applied for asylum, and on failing in their applications, renwewed them, claiming the rights under the Directive again. The respondent said that the rights applied only on a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346797

AC (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 Mar 2009

The court considered the propriety of an order for deportation of an offender after conviction for a serious offence.
Law LJ said: ‘Clearly the Secretary of State has a particular responsibility to make judgments as to what Judge LJ called ‘broad issues of social cohesion and public confidence’ within the system of immigration control. The Secretary of State’s judgment on those matters must broadly be respected by the AIT, at least so far as the policy itself is concerned. As Wall LJ stated in OP . . the Secretary of State’s assessment of those matters has ‘to be taken as a given unless it is palpably wrong’. But then the AIT must exercise its own judgment as to whether, in view of that axiom or given, the decision to remove or deport is disproportionate in the terms of Article 8(2) of the Convention. That decision is to be arrived at on the merits and is entirely in the hands of the Tribunal.’

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 377

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey) CA 27-May-2010
The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346154

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Thirakumar and others: CA 1989

After asylum application files had been considered by the Asylum Directorate the papers were returned to the immigration authorities at the relevant port of entry for the holding of a further interview with each of the applicants and the handing to each of them of a reasons letter which had already been prepared by the Directorate. At the interviews the immigration officers elicited further information relevant to any decision to their entitlement to be treated as refugees. They did not serve the reasons letters; they did not tell them that they had been refused asylum; they referred the files back to the Directorate. The applicants were ultimately refused leave to enter.
Held: The initial decision of the Directorate was not final or determinative. The die was not cast once the Directorate had communicated its decision to the immigration officers and the immigration officers had no continuing role to play in providing information to the Secretary of State germane to his reaching a final determination. The Court contemplated that even a decision by the Asylum Directorate might be provisional depending upon what subsequently happened. There had been no unfairness in that case but to take a decision without having considered relevant representations would be unfair.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson MR Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1989] IAR 402

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.184245

Boudjlida v Prefect of the Pyrenees-Atlantiques: ECJ 25 Jun 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2008/115/EC – Return of third-country nationals residing – Procedure for the adoption of a decision to return – Principle of respect for the rights of the defense – Right be heard before a decision is likely to affect the interests of a third country illegally – Content of the rights of defense and the right to be heard – Right to express a point of view with sufficient time for reflection – Benefit of using a board – Restrictions on the right to be heard

Judges:

M Wathelet AG

Citations:

C-249/13, [2014] EUECJ C-249/13 – O, [2014] EUECJ C-249/13

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2008/115/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.533722

N, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 18 Feb 2009

The court severely criticised the removal of a failed asylum applicant whilst his application for judicial review was pending, and ordered the respondent to arrange the return of the applicant to the UK.

Judges:

Sir George Newman

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 873 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

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

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343928

J, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department: Admn 2 Apr 2009

Application for judicial review of a decision made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 15 June 2006 to certify the Claimant’s asylum and human rights claims under Section 96 of the 2002 Act on the grounds that they relied on matters which could have been raised in the Claimant’s appeal against an earlier decision to refuse entry and should have been raised in a statement made in response to an earlier one stop notice and that in the opinion of the Secretary of State there was no satisfactory reason for those matters not having been raised in the earlier appeal or in response to the one stop notice.
Held: Stadlen J set out the following four stage process to be undertaken by the respondent before she could certify a claim under s.96:
‘Under s.96(1) and (2) before the Secretary of State can lawfully decided to certify, she has to go through a four stage process. First, she must be satisfied that the person was notified of a right of appeal under s.82 against another immigration decision (s.96(1)) . . Second, she must conclude that the claim or application to which the new decision relates relies on a matter that could have been raised in the appeal against the old decision (s.96(1)(b)) … Third, she must form the opinion that there is no satisfactory reason for that matter not having been raised in an appeal against the old decision (s.96(1)(c)) … Fourth, she must address her mind to whether, having regard to all relevant factors, she should exercise her discretion to certify and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in favour of certification.’

Judges:

Stadlen J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 705 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 96

Cited by:

Cited – Vassell, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (S96 Niaa 2002, Test; Merits) (IJR) UTIAC 3-Jun-2015
UTIAC In J v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 705 (Admin), Stadlen J set out a four stage process that must be undertaken by the Secretary of State before she could certify a claim under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343060

A v London Borough of Croydon; Regina (WK) v Kent County Council: Admn 8 May 2009

The claimants had arrived as asylum seekers, and said that they were under eighteen, and entitled to assistance as children. The social workers decided that they were older. The claimants said that insufficient attention had been given to paediatricians’ reports.
Held: The paediatricians’ views should be taken into account but they were not likely to be any more reliable or helpful than those of experienced social workers and the authorities were entitled to prefer the latter.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 939 (Admin), [2009] Fam Law 659, [2010] 1 FLR 193

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 20(1)

Cited by:

Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – MWA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-May-2014
The asylum claimant disputed the assessment that he was an adult. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343063

KRS v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Dec 2008

Admissibility – The applicant’s claim for asylum had failed, and he challeged the decision to return him to Greece, the point of entry to the EU, saying that he would be at risk if so returned.
Held: The United Kingdom would not breach its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention by removing the applicant to Greece.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

32733/08, [2008] ECHR 1781, (2009) 48 EHRR SE8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JN CA 14-May-2008
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341414

KJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Apr 2009

The asylum claimant was a Tamil whose surveying and reconnaissance work in support of LTTE military operations enabled that group more accurately to target the Sri Lankan forces. The appellant was never involved in any conflict causing injury or death to civilians. It was said that he should be excluded from protection by asylum because of his involvement in criminal acts. The AIT nevertheless held him disqualified from refugee protection by reference to article 1F(c). It was common ground that ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ included acts of terrorism such as the deliberate killing of civilians – holding ‘the appellant must have known the type of organisation he was joining, its purpose and the extent to which the organisation was prepared to go to meet its aims.’
Held: The application of article 1F(c) will be straightforward in the case of an active member of [an] organisation that promotes its objects only by acts of terrorism. There will almost certainly be serious reasons for considering that he has been guilty of [relevant] acts . .
However, the LTTE, during the period when [the appellant] was a member, was not such an organisation. It pursued its political ends in part by acts of terrorism and in part by military action directed against the armed forces of the Government of Sri Lanka. The application of article 1F(c) is less straightforward in such a case. A person may join such an organisation, because he agrees with its political objectives, and be willing to participate in its military actions, but may not agree with and may not be willing to participate in its terrorist activities. Of course, the higher up in the organisation a person is the more likely will be the inference that he agrees with and promotes all of its activities, including its terrorism. But it seems to me that a foot soldier in such an organisation, who has not participated in acts of terrorism, and in particular has not participated in the murder or attempted murder of civilians, has not been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 292

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – JS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 17-Mar-2010
The asylum seeker was accused of complicity in war crimes in Sri Lanka. He had worked as an intelligence officer but his cover had been broken and he fled to the UK. It was said that he was excluded from protection as an asylum seeker.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.329540