Category: Immigration

Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 18 Mar 2009

The applicant appealed against rejection of his asylum claim on the basis of his alleged involvement in acts of terrorism. He had been set to face trial but the charges were dropped for insufficient evidence.
Held: Sedley LJ considered the meaning of the phrase ‘serious reasons for considering’ and said that it: ‘sets a standard above mere suspicion. Beyond this, it is a mistake to try to paraphrase the straightforward language of the Convention: it has to be treated as meaning what it says.’

Judges:

Sedley, Arden, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 222, [2009] Imm AR 624, [2009] INLR 586

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 1F(c)

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

Immigration

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.322736

AM and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: CA 17 Mar 2009

The claimants complained of their detention after the disorder at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre.
Held: The investigation of allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment related to those in the custody of the State, though it was run by an independent company, and was required to satisfy the requirements of Article 3. (Longmore LJ dissenting)
Sedley LJ said: ‘A body of European and domestic case-law has established that, when there is credible evidence of a breach of art. 2, the state has an obligation to provide or to institute an effective official investigation. The purposes of such an investigation were described by Lord Bingham in R (Amin) v Home Secretary [2004] 1 AC 653, ss31: ‘to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learnt from his death may save the lives of others.”
and: ‘ECtHR jurisprudence establishes the following of any art. 3 investigation:
The investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible;
It may generally be regarded as necessary for the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events. This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence;
It must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances;
It must be thorough, in that the authorities must make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions. They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident; and
It must permit effective access for the complainant to the investigatory procedure.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Elias

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 219, [2009] ACD 38

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .

Cited by:

Cited – M, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 2-Dec-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.321825

HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same: CA 10 Mar 2009

Each applicant had had his appeal for asylum rejected. They had said that they were practising homosexuals, and that they would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The appeals failed. In each case the social norms of the country of origin were hostile to practising homosexuals. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the tribunal to expect an applicant to go to some extent to adjust his behaviour to accommodate such social norms. There was firm evidence that such an adjustment would result in the applicants not suffering persecution.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Keene and Sir Paul Kennedy

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 172, [2009] WLR (D) 87

Links:

Bailii, Times, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 2-Sep-2008
Application for leave to appeal against refusal of asylum – fear of persecution. . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same SC 7-Jul-2010
The claimants sought to prevent their removal and return to their countries of origin saying that as practising homosexuals they would face discrimination and persecution. They appealed against a judgment saying that they could avoid persecution by . .
Cited – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317901

TE (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Mar 2009

The applicant had been refused asylum, but because she was a minor had been given discretionary leave to remain. She applied for an extension, but after a two year delay, this was refused. She now said that both the respondent and the immigration judge had failed to address Rule 395C issues.

Judges:

Sedley, Jacob, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 174, [2009] INLR 558

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Rules 395C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sapkota and Another (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Nov-2011
In each case, the respondent had refused an application for leave to remain, but had taken no prompt steps for their removal. The applicants now said that this rendered the original decision ‘not in accordance with the law’ under section 84(1)(e) of . .
Cited – Patel (Consideration of Sapkota – Unfairness) India UTIAC 16-Dec-2011
UTIAC (1) There is no substantive segregation of considerations going to an extension of stay and removal where the appellant seeks leave to remain outside the rules on 395C factors and these are considered on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317956

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 against the decision of the Secretary of State to deprive him of his British citizenship. He contends that they do because the appeal will determine his civil rights and obligations, so as to engage Article 6(1). The Secretary of State contends that the rights in question are public law rights, so that their determination does not engage Article 6.

Judges:

Mitting J, Lane SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKSIAC 66/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 CA – 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 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 . .

Cited by:

At SIAC (2) – 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. . .
At SIAC (2) – 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 (2) – 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 SIAC (2) – 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. . .
At SIAC (2) – 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. . .
At SIAC (2) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (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 . .
At SIAC (2) – 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 (2) – 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 SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC (2) – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.295109

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 public good.

Judges:

Mitting J Ch, Lane SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKSIAC 66/2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40(2)

Citing:

At Admn – 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 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 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 . .

Cited by:

At SIAC(1) – 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 SIAC(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. . .
At SIAC (1) – 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 (1) – 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 SIAC (1) – 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. . .
At SIAC (1) – 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. . .
At SIAC (1) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (1) – 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 . .
At SIAC (1) – 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 (1) – 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 SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC (1) – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.295106

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 Secretary of State to recognise her as a refugee and grant her leave to remain, saying: ‘I am satisfied that a determination of the ‘refugee’ status of the claimant in accordance with article 1 of the Refugee Convention was made by an appropriate tribunal, the AIT. The decision is binding upon the defendant and affords the claimant the protection of article 32(1). Accordingly I grant the relief sought by the claimant.’

Judges:

Nicola Davies QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3162 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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. . .
At first instance – 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: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293971

Abdi and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 19 Dec 2008

The claimants, foreign nationals, had been detained pending deportation after completion of sentences of imprisonment. They challenged the policy that such deportees should be held by default pending deportation.
Held: David J granted declarations that (i) paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act prohibits the Secretary of State from operating any policy in relation to the detention of FNPs which contains a presumption in favour of detention and (ii) it was unlawful for the Secretary of State to operate the policy introduced in April 2006 in that it was not sufficiently published or accessible until its publication on 9 September 2008. He dismissed the other claims, in particular the claims for damages for unlawful detention.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3166 (Admin), [2009] ACD 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .

Cited by:

At first instance – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Appeal from – WL (Congo) and Another, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293942

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte S: QBD 25 Feb 1998

Immigration Appeal Tribunal had duty to hear parties on a genuine appeal even though had failed to comply with earlier directions.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 25-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 154

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86924

Palisetty v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 21 Jul 2014

The claimant said that she had been wrongfully removed to India, and sought damages.
Held: Slade DBE J said: ‘On the evidence on which the immigration officers acted and that which would have been available to them at the time, I find that they were justified in detaining the Claimant for examining her on arrival at Heathrow on 28 December 2011. However on the material before the immigration officers and that which was available at or around 28 December 2011, the Defendant was not justified in inferring that the purpose of the Claimant in seeking to re-enter the United Kingdom was not to study but to work as a nanny. The Defendant has failed to satisfy the burden of proof on her to establish that the detention of the Claimant after examining her was justified.’

Judges:

Slade DBE J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2473 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.535134

Kagabo v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 12 Feb 2009

The court was asked whether section 78(1) of the 2002 Act prevents the Secretary of State from setting directions for removal of an applicant who has applied for an extension of time to appeal an adverse immigration decision.

Judges:

Pitchford J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 153 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 78(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.282624

A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon: CA 18 Dec 2008

The court declined appeals against findings that local authorities through social workers could properly assess whether the claimants were under eighteen and entitled, though asylum seekers, to housing provision and support under the 1989 Act.

Judges:

Ward, maurice Kay LJJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1445, [2009] PTSR 1011, [2009] ACD 17, [2009] LGR 24, [2009] Fam Law 290, [2009] 1 FLR 1325, [2009] BLGR 24, [2009] 1 FCR 317

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 20(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – M and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lambeth and others Admn 20-Jun-2008
The claimant had arrived from Afhganistan and sought asylum and accomodation as a child. The social worker involved assessed him to be an adult.
Held: The decision was within the duties of the local authorities. . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279991

MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 15 Jan 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 4, [2009] Imm AR 413

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
Appeal from – MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Nov-2010
The asylum applicant had been found to have lied to exaggerate the risk of persecution if he was returned to Somalia. The Court was now asked as to the relevance of that finding, and as to the legitimacy of an appeal court interfering with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279970

AM (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 26 Nov 2008

The appellant had been convicted for several serious offences. He sought to appeal against an order for his removal from the UK on completion of his term in prison, saying that it would infringe his right to a family life.
Held: Given later cases, it was clear that the judge should have more formally considered the effect on the appellant’s family life. Remitted for reconsideration.

Judges:

Tuckey, Jacob LJJ, Sir William Aldous

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1408

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279979

Kaur v Lord Advocate: SCS 6 Jun 1980

‘The action arises out of the rules relating to immigration in the United Kingdom, and raises sharply the question of whether the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights are directly enforceable in the Scottish Courts.’

Judges:

Lord Ross

Citations:

[1980] ScotCS CSOH – 5, [1980] 3 CMLR 79, 1980 SC 319, 1981 SLT 322

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279517

Konstatinov v The Netherlands: ECHR 26 Apr 2007

The applicant, of Roma origin with a troubled and criminal history. The Court considered the minister’s refusal of her request for a residence permit to enable her to live with her husband (entitled to permanent residence since 1988) and their son (born in 1989). The grounds of refusal included public order grounds, but also her husband’s failure to satisfy the minimum income requirements under the rules (para 15). The refusal was upheld by the domestic courts on both grounds (para 21), and by Strasbourg.
Having regard to her criminal record, the fact that her son would come of age in April 2007, and the lack of any insurmountable obstacles to her own return to Serbia where she had lived until the age of seven, it could not be said that the Netherlands authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between her interests and its own interest in controlling immigration and public expenditure and in the prevention of disorder and crime
The Court accepted the principle of a minimum income requirement: ‘In principle, the Court does not consider unreasonable a requirement that an alien having achieved a settled status in a Contracting State and who seeks family reunion there must demonstrate that he/she has sufficient independent and lasting income, not being welfare benefits, to provide for the basic costs of subsistence of his or her family members with whom reunion is sought.’

Citations:

16351/03, [2007] ECHR 336, [2007] 2 FCR 194

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.251690

Barikzai v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 22 May 2006

The appellant challenged the refusal of his appeal from a decision of the AIT refusing his claim for asylum. He said that he had good reason to fear his return home because his father had been a member of the Taleban.
Held: The immigration judge who considered the granting of leave to appeal should identify precisely the errors of law against which appeal was sought. That had not been done here allowing an appeal which was substantially on the facts alone.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242940

In re A (Children) (Care proceedings: Asylum seekers): FD 16 May 2003

In the course of care proceedings, it had become apparent that the sole purpose in their continuance by the parents was not that the children were at any real or substantial risk of harm, but rather that their continuance influenced the parents’ ability to stay within the UK. There was no evidence of any risk to the children from being returned to their home country, and a continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 26-May-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.182508

Agyarko and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 6 May 2015

Appeals against orders for removal after applicants had each married after expiry of the period of their lawful stay. A conceded that her application fell outside the Rules, but said that it was an appropriate case for the exercise of discretion.
Held: The appeals were dismissed.

Judges:

Longmore, Gloster, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 440, [2015] WLR(D) 205, [2016] INLR 198, [2015] Imm AR 1201, [2016] 1 WLR 390

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jeunesse v The Netherlands ECHR 3-Oct-2014
(Grand Chamber) Although the applicant had married and had three children while her immigration status in the Netherlands was precarious, there were exceptional circumstances such that a fair balance had not been struck between the competing . .
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 . .

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 . .
Appeal from – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
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, Human Rights

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.546407

Jeunesse v The Netherlands: ECHR 3 Oct 2014

(Grand Chamber) Although the applicant had married and had three children while her immigration status in the Netherlands was precarious, there were exceptional circumstances such that a fair balance had not been struck between the competing interests involved: the husband and three children were all citizens of the Netherlands with the right to enjoy family life there; the applicant had lost her Dutch nationality when Suriname became independent and not through her own choice; she had been living in the Netherlands for 16 years and had no criminal record; although there were no ‘insurmountable obstacles’ to the whole family settling in Suriname, they would experience a degree of hardship if forced to do so; and the Dutch authorities had paid insufficient attention to the problems the children would face in either having their whole lives disrupted by a move to Suriname or being separated from their primary carer. In the circumstances, it was ‘questionable whether general immigration policy considerations of themselves can be regarded as sufficient justification for refusing the applicant residence in the Netherlands’
‘Where children are involved, their best interests must be taken into account. . . On this particular point, the Court reiterates that there is a broad consensus, including in international law, in support of the idea that in all decisions concerning children, their best interests are of paramount importance. . . Whilst alone they cannot be decisive, such interests certainly must be afforded significant weight. Accordingly, national decision-making bodies should, in principle, advert to and assess evidence in respect of the practicality, feasibility and proportionality of any removal of a non-national parent in order to give effective protection and sufficient weight to the best interests of the children directly affected by it.’

Citations:

12738/10 – Grand Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1036, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1003JUD001273810, (2015) 60 EHRR 17

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Judgment – Jeunesse v The Netherlands (Legal Summary) ECHR 3-Oct-2014
ECHR Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Refusal to grant residence permit on ground of family life despite existence of exceptional circumstances: violation
Facts – The applicant, a Surinamese . .
Cited – Ali and Bibi, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Nov-2015
At the claimants alleged that the rules requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here were an unjustifiable interference . .
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 . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Cited – Agyarko and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
Appeals against orders for removal after applicants had each married after expiry of the period of their lawful stay. A conceded that her application fell outside the Rules, but said that it was an appropriate case for the exercise of discretion. . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.537564

MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 8 Oct 2013

The court was asked: ‘How is the reference in rule 398 to ‘exceptional circumstances’ to be understood, compatibly with Convention rights?’
Held: The Court of Appeal accepted the submission made on behalf of the Secretary of State that the reference to exceptional circumstances (an expression which had been derived from the Jeunesse line of case law) served the purpose of emphasising that, in the balancing exercise, great weight should be given to the public interest in deporting foreign criminals who did not satisfy rules 398 and 399 or 399A, and that it was only exceptionally that such foreign criminals would succeed in showing that their rights under article 8 trumped the public interest in their deportation (paras 40 and 41). The court went on to explain that this did not mean that a test of exceptionality was being applied. Rather, the word ‘exceptional’ denoted a departure from a general rule:
‘The general rule is that, in the case of a foreign prisoner to whom paragraphs 399 and 399A do not apply, very compelling reasons will be required to outweigh the public interest in deportation. These compelling reasons are the ‘exceptional circumstances’.’
The court added that ‘the exceptional circumstances to be considered in the balancing exercise involve the application of a proportionality test as required by the Strasbourg jurisprudence’
and . . ‘In our view, that is not to say that a test of exceptionality is being applied. Rather it is that, in approaching the question of whether removal is a proportionate interference with an individual’s article 8 rights, the scales are heavily weighted in favour of deportation and something very compelling (which will be ‘exceptional’) is required to outweigh the public interest in removal.’

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Davis, Gloster LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2013] WLR(D) 380, [2014] 1 WLR 544, [2014] INLR 18, [2014] 2 All ER 543, [2014] Imm AR 211

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

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 . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.516321

Ymeraga v Ministre Du Travail, De L’Emploi Et De L’Immigration: ECJ 8 May 2013

ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement – Fundamental rights

Judges:

R. Silva de Lapuerta Rap P

Citations:

C-87/12, [2013] EUECJ C-87/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:291, [2013] 3 CMLR 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.503495

Iida v Stadt Ulm: ECJ 8 Nov 2012

ECJ Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 51 – Directive 2003/109/EC – Third-country nationals – Right of residence in a Member State – Directive 2004/38/EC – Third-country nationals who are family members of Union citizens – Third-country national neither accompanying nor joining a Union citizen in the host Member State and remaining in the citizen’s Member State of origin – Right of residence of a third-country national in the Member State of origin of a citizen residing in another Member State – Citizenship of the Union – Fundamental rights

Citations:

C-40/11, [2012] EUECJ C-40/11, [2013] Fam 121, [2013] 1 CMLR 47, [2014] All ER (EC) 619, [2012] WLR(D) 315, [2013] 2 WLR 788, ECLI:EU:C:2012:691

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Directive 2003/109/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.466014

Hasan and others (Dependent Parent) (India): IAT 12 May 1975

IAT Dependent parent – Widow (48) seeking admission with sons approaching ages 18 and 15 years-Small earnings by widow and small income from family land – Sons not working though able-bodied and not shown to be unable to get employment – Sponsoring son in UK making small remittances to supplement family’s poor and precarious livelihood – Whether the teen-age sons should be expected to make effort to help themselves – Whether widow and sons entitled to join sponsoring son if their dependence not a ‘necessary dependence’- HC 79, para 45.

Judges:

P. N. Dalton Esq (Vice-President)

Citations:

[1976] Imm AR 28, [1975] UKIAT 00001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279081

Nhundu and Chiwera v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Zimbabwe): IAT 1 Jun 2001

IAT ‘This case is one of the first to raise issues under section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It requires the Tribunal to examine in particular certain aspects of the protection afforded by article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights to the right to respect for private and family life in the context of a decision proposing removal of two appellants to Zimbabwe.’

Judges:

Ockleton DP

Citations:

[2001] UKIAT 00613

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279074

DL (DRC) v The Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria: CA 18 Dec 2008

The Court asked: ‘1(a) Is a person who is outside his country of origin and recognised as a refugee, and who has subsequent to that recognition taken on the nationality of the host country, still a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees?
(b) If such a person does cease to be a refugee, does his refugee status cease only following a procedural process, or automatically by operation of law?
2. What is the effect, if any, of Directives 2004/83/EC and 2005/85/EC on these cases?
3. Do paragraphs 352A (relating to spouses) and 352D (relating to dependant children) apply to a person who was recognised as a refugee and is now a British citizen?’
Held: The court rejected the appellants’ submission that paras 352A and 352D applied. It also rejected their case under Article 8 of the ECHR. As to 3), the references to ‘asylum’ and ‘refugee’ were directed to a status of the sponsor that was current and accepted. As to 1 and 2, after a re-statement of them, Laws LJ answered ‘No’ and that it was open to a State Party to the Refugee Convention to prescribe the procedures under which cessation of refugee status pursuant to Article 1C(3) would have effect but that, if a State Party had not done so, cessation would occur automatically. The directive had not laid down a procedure.

Judges:

Laws, Rix and Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1420

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – ZN (Afghanistan) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi) SC 12-May-2010
The Court was asked what rules apply to family members seeking entry to the United Kingdom, where the sponsor was given asylum and then obtained British citizenship. The ECO had said that the ordinary family members rules applied, where the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278948

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AR: Admn 19 Dec 2008

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3164 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – AR v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 15-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the Home Secretary to vary the control order made against him under the 2005 Act.
Held: The organisation of which the applicant was a member might soon enter into a settlement with the Libyan . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278994

Barry v London Borough of Southwark: CA 19 Dec 2008

The claimant a citizen of the Netherlands, appealed against the refusal to grant him housing assistance. He had been unemployed save for taking casual work during the Wimbledon championships, but the Authority had denied that he was a worker. He had also suffered an injury preventing him working.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The term ‘worker’ must not be interpreted restrictively. The court should have considered his employment history as a whole when considering the last six months’ period and in any event the work at Wimbledon should have been accepted as such.

Judges:

Arden LJ, Thomas LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1440

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 202, Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1003), Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1294)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – DM Levin v Staatssecretaris Van Justitie ECJ 23-Mar-1982
ECJ The concepts of ‘worker’ and ‘activity as an employed person’ define the field of application of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and, as such, may not be interpreted restrictively.
Cited – Kempf v Staatssecretaris Van Justitie ECJ 3-Jun-1986
The term ‘worker’ when used within community legislation should not be interpreted restrictively. . .
Cited – Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wuerttemberg ECJ 3-Jul-1986
The Equal Treatment Directive is concerned with ‘workers’ which is a term of art in Community law: ‘That concept must be defined in accordance with objective criteria which distinguish the employment relationship by reference to the rights and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278973

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Mehari: QBD 1994

A Special Adjudicator is not limited to checking whether the Secretary of State has some material on which he might give such a certificate. He must make an independent judgment and consider de novo whether he is satisfied that the country was a safe country: ‘the discipline which this system imposes upon the Secretary of State consists in the fact that the Adjudicator must independently judge the merits of the certificate.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1994] QB 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe HL 15-Feb-1996
Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Held: Adjudicators are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.219245

AA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State: CA 9 Oct 2020

Judges:

Lord Justice Moylan
Lord Justice Baker
And
Lord Justice Popplewell

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1296, [2020] 4 WLR 145, [2020] INLR 599, [2020] WLR(D) 549, [2021] Imm AR 114

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; RA (Iraq) v Same; AA (Nigeria) v Same SC 20-Jul-2022
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.654545

HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 Sep 2020

Judges:

Lord Justice Underhill
(Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division))
Lord Justice Peter Jackson
And
Lord Justice Popplewell

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1176, [2020] INLR 639, [2021] 1 WLR 1327, [2020] HRLR 21, [2020] WLR(D) 506, [2021] Imm AR 59, [2021] 2 All ER 898

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; RA (Iraq) v Same; AA (Nigeria) v Same SC 20-Jul-2022
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.653363

A, Re Permission To Appeal Under Section 103(B) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: SCS 18 Nov 2008

Application for permission to appeal against a determination of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal

Judges:

Lord Kingarth, Lord Carloway, Lord Marnoch

Citations:

[2008] ScotCS CSIH – 59, [2008] CSIH 59

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 103(B)

Cited by:

Leave – A v The Secretary of State for The Home Department SCS 17-May-2013
The reclaimer seeks recall of an interlocutor of Lord Boyd of Duncansby dated 7 November 2012 by which he allowed an amendment of the petition to anonymise the petitioner (the anonymity order) and gave directions in terms of section 11 of the . .
Leave to appeal to Court of Session – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Immigration

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277904

Mensah, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 13 Aug 2008

Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, following the refusal on paper by a national of Ghana who in June 2006 applied for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the length of her residence in the United Kingdom, along with the length of time her second child (the eldest one being in Ghana still) had lived in the United Kingdom, 7 years.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2702 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277867

HG and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 17 Oct 2008

The claimant asylum applicants would have been given Exceptional Leave to Remain, followed by Indefinite Leave. The respondent changed the application of its resources so that their applications were not processed, and then curtailed the scheme under which they might have obtained leave.
Held: The applications for judicial review failed.

Judges:

Underhill J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2685 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277541