Category: Immigration

Mt, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: Admn 25 Jul 2008

The court asked two questions: It is trite law that public authorities must take into account relevant considerations but when does a public authority have a duty to be proactive in acquiring knowledge of those relevant considerations? Secondly, as to the responsibility of a public authority when third parties perform statutory functions, acting under a contract or sub-contract with the public authority. If the third party is an agent of the public authority, in what circumstances is the public authority liable for its failings?

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1788 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271104

Liverpool City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon and AK: Admn 18 Jul 2008

Two local authorities disputed who should take responsibility for the care of a vulnerable young person. He had first claimed asylum in Liverpool, then was detained in Oxfordshire and last in Hillingdon who returned him on his request to Liverpool, who then refused responsibility.
Held: The connection was with Liverpool, and Hillingdon’s involvement ceased on his return to Liverpool.

Judges:

Goudie QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1702 (Admin), Times 03-Oct-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Liverpool City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon and Another CA 10-Feb-2009
The applicant asylum-seeker had arrived in Hillingdon and claimed that he required assistance, that he was a child, and that he wanted to go to Liverpool. Hillingdon had assisted him to do so. Liverpool now appealed against a finding that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government, Immigration

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271103

Greater Manchester Police, Regina (on the Application of) v City of Salford Magistrates Court: Admn 21 Jul 2008

Sums of money had been found on a raid on factory premises where many illegal workers were found. The company appealed seizure of the money under the 2002 Act.

Judges:

Richards LJ, MacKay J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1651 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270903

MW (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Jun 2008

Application for permission to appeal. The applicant had been at first refused asylum, but then it was allowed on the basis that if returned to Eritrea he would be mistreated, being seen as a draft dodger. The Secretray of state appealed saying that the court had misapplied the Country Guidance.

Judges:

Dyson, Maurice Kay LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 809

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270863

SA (Article 8, Burden of Proof) Algeria: IAT 18 Jun 2008

AIT 1. Neither Boultif v Switzerland [2001] 33 EHRR 50 nor Amrollahi v Denmark (11 July 2002, BAILII: [2002] ECHR 585) is authority for the proposition that the burden of proof lies on the respondent to show that it is reasonable to expect an applicant’s family to accompany him to his own country of origin (where he has a right of residence and where it is probable his country makes provision in its immigration law for family reunion).
2. The European Court of Human Rights has not seen a period of delay of limited duration (before an applicant can be considered for re-admission to the country where he had established family ties) as in itself giving rise to disproportionality: see e.g. Kaya v Germany Appn. No. 31753/02 28 June 2007), [2007] Imm AR 802, para 68

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00054

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270760

MM (Somalia) and ZO (Somalia), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 25 Jun 2008

Judges:

Mackie QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1604 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
At First Instance – 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

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270844

Ahmed, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 21 Jun 2019

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1070

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Ahmed, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-Jan-2015
Proceedings to challenge the decision of the defendant refusing the claimant leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.638810

Karassev v Finland: ECHR 12 Jan 1999

Admissibility. The arbitrary denial of citizenship may violate the right to respect for private life under Article 8. The Convention did not guarantee the right to acquire a particular nationality. Nevertheless, it did ‘not exclude that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual.’

Judges:

G Ress, P

Citations:

31414/96, [1999] ECHR 200, (1999) 28 EHRR CD132

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘Is it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights to deny British citizenship to the child of a British father and a non-British mother simply because they were not married to one another at the time of his birth or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.540464

KA (EEA: Family Permit; Admission) Sudan: IAT 25 Jun 2008

AIT Article 5 of the Citizens Directive (Council Directive 2004/38/EC) does not confer an unqualified right of pre-entry, entry or residence on family members of a Union citizen exercising Treaty rights. Family members are required to have an entry visa in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 or, where appropriate, with national law. As explained in CO (EEA Regulations: family permit) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00070, the United Kingdom has chosen to impose a visa requirement in the form of an EEA family permit regime. If a family member arrives at a United Kingdom border without an EEA family permit and seeks admission, he must satisfy the requirements of regulation 11 of the 2006 Regulations. Whether a person is entitled to a right of admission under regulation 11 depends on his being able to produce relevant documentation on that occasion (or within a reasonable period of time thereafter).

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00052

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 2004/38/EC

Immigration, European

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270759

SB (Family Visit Appeal: Brother-In-Law) Pakistan: IAT 21 May 2008

IAT The relationship of brother- (or sister-) in-law between an appellant and sponsor falls within the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations 2003 where the sponsor is the sibling of the Appellant’s spouse but not where the appellant’s brother or sister is married to the sponsor in the UK.

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00053

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations 2003

Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270757

Ashori, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 22 May 2008

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1460 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270604

RU (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Jul 2008

The appellant, who is aged 38, appeals with the leave of this court against the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal rejecting his Article 8 claims on a redetermined appeal.

Judges:

Pill, Scott Baker, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 753

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270581

VM (FGM, Risks, Mungiki, Kikuyu/Gikuyu) Kenya CG: IAT 9 Jun 2008

IAT 1. It is important to determine whether a Kenyan claimant who fears FGM belongs to an ethnic group amongst which FGM is practised. If so, she may be a member of a particular social group for the purposes of the 1951 Refugee Convention
2. Uncircumcised women in Kenya, whether Gikuyu/Kikuyu or not, are not as such, at real risk of FGM.
3. There is evidence that the Mungiki organisation seeks to impose FGM and other forms of violence, on women and children other than those who have been initiated into their sect. In particular, such women and children include the wives, partners, children and other female family members of those men who have taken the Mungiki oath. Insufficient protection is available from the Kenyan authorities for such persons.
4. It may be possible for a woman not wishing to undergo FGM herself, or not wishing her child to do so, to relocate to another community which does not follow the practice of FGM.
5. In general:
(a) those who practise FGM are not reasonably likely (particularly in urban areas), to seek to inflict FGM upon women from ethnic groups or sub-groups which do not practise FGM;
(b) a woman or her child who comes from, or becomes connected by marriage, partnership or other family ties, to an ethnic group (or sub-group) where FGM is practised will be at real risk only if the evidence shows that she is reasonably likely to be required by her parents, grandparents, or by others in a position of power and influence over her, to undergo FGM or allow her child to undergo it.
6. Internal relocation may be available in Kenya to a woman who is at real risk of forced FGM in her home area if the evidence shows: (i) she is not reasonably likely to encounter anyone in the place of relocation who would be in a position of power and influence over her and who would use that power and influence to require her to undergo FGM, or would cause her presence in the place of relocation to become known to such a person or persons (e.g. the Mungiki); and (ii) that the relocation is reasonable taking into account all the relevant factors including the religious and cultural context, the position of women within Kenyan society and the need for kinship links in the place of relocation in order to sustain such movement successfully. In particular, in the case of a woman from a rural area in Kenya, internal relocation to some other region or urban centre will not be available unless her circumstances are such that she will be able to survive economically (see Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2006] UKHL 5).
7. This guidance supersedes that in FK (FGM – Risk and Relocation) Kenya CG [2007] UKAIT 00041.

Judges:

Jarvis SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00049

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.269785

CE (Colombia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 May 2008

Renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision of the AIT which on a reconsideration dismissed her appeal from the Secretary of State’s decision that her removal from the United Kingdom would not breach Article 8.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 651

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.269714

AK (Guinea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 15 May 2008

Renewed application for permission to appeal against the decision of an immigration judge who, on a second stage reconsideration, dismissed the appellant’s appeal on asylum and human rights grounds. Leave granted.

Judges:

Toulson LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 618

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.269710

VO, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 14 May 2008

Application for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State refusing the claimant permission to continue to reside in this country with his wife and child and stating that his application to do so did not amount to a fresh claim that would give rise to an in country right of appeal.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1192 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268723

McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Jun 2008

The claimant sought leave to appeal against refusal of a residence permit. She was a citizen both of Ireland and the UK. Her husband was Jamaican and had been refused a residence permit and card. The claimant said that the AIT had not properly considered her own dual nationality.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 641

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268799

WD (Lebanon, Palestinian, Ano, Risk) Lebanon CG: IAT 21 May 2008

IAT The Abu Nidal Organisation (‘ANO’) exists now as no more than separate cells and individuals operating on their own, and hence is very unlikely to pose a real threat to an individual who has in the past been the object of its hostility.

Judges:

Allen SIJ, Eshun SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00047

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268774

Zhu, Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ECJ 19 Oct 2004

ECJ (Free Movement of Persons) Right of residence – Child with the nationality of one Member State but residing in another Member State – Parents nationals of a non-member country – Mother’s right to reside in the other Member State. The applicant girl though of Chinese origin, had been born in Ireland, and therefore entitled to an Irish passport. She was able to live in the UK because of the family’s independent resources, and her mother as her carer could live here also. Any judgement as to the mother’s motives was not relevant. ‘Moreover, the limitations and conditions referred to in Article 18 EC and laid down by Directive 90/364 are based on the idea that the exercise of the right of residence of citizens of the Union can be subordinated to the legitimate interests of the member States. Thus, although, according to the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 90/364, beneficiaries of the right of residence must not become an ‘unreasonable’ burden on the public finances of the host Member State, the Court nevertheless observed that those limitations and conditions must be applied in compliance with the limits imposed by Community law and in accordance with the principle of proportionality.’

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-2004, C-200/02, [2004] EUECJ C-200/02, [2004] ECR 1-9925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – W (China) and X (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-2006
The claimants had entered England unlawfully, fleeing from China, then moved to Ireland and then back to England with their new born child, and claimed asylum. The court considered how the position of their child affected the parents.
Held: To . .
Cited – Pedro v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Dec-2009
The claimant, an EU national, came to the UK to join her son. He had worked but became dependent on benefits. She sought payment of the State Pension.
Held: A refusal to pay the pension would dissuade workers from moving around within the EU, . .
Cited – Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.216606

Regina (Vemenac) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 17 Jul 2002

The applicant was a Serb from Croatia whose application for asylum was refused. On appeal to an adjudicator he also raised human rights issues but his appeal was dismissed. He later applied again for leave to remain on the basis of his relationship with a woman (invoking Article 8 of the European Convention) and by reference to material which he said showed that he would face difficulties obtaining housing if he were returned. The fresh application was rejected, and a certificate was issued pursuant to section 73(8), which was challenged in proceedings for judicial review.
Held: Considering the situation which had to exist to enable the Secretary of State to issue a certificate: ‘It is not enough for a conclusion to be reached that the purpose was delay, because of course a good claim can delay removal from the United Kingdom . . And so it could be said of almost any claim, good or bad, that one of the purposes for making the application is to delay removal. What is necessary to justify the Secretary of State’s certification is that in his opinion the appellant had no other legitimate purpose for making the application . . The question is whether the Secretary of State was entitled to be satisfied that in his opinion the appellant had no such legitimate purpose for making the application. . . What that means is that the Secretary of State must be shown reasonably to have been satisfied that in his opinion the appellant had no legitimate purpose because the case put forward is so hopeless that it was not properly arguable.’

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1636 (Admin)

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 73(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sandhu, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Sep-2003
The claimant challenged the refusal of a right to appeal against the decision refusing hs asylum appeal. He had failed to attend two hearings. The respondent gave his certificate under section 73 that in his opinion the only purpose of the appeal . .
Disapproved – Balamurali, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-May-2003
. .
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. . .
Approved – Soylemez, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 15-Apr-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.186453

KA (Statelessness: Meaning and Relevance) Stateless: IAT 14 Apr 2008

IAT 1. Statelessness does not of itself constitute persecution, although the circumstances in which a person has been deprived of citizenship may be a guide to the circumstances likely to attend his life as a non-citizen.
2. The Refugee Convention uses nationality as one of the criteria of the identification of refugees: there is no relevant criterion of ‘effective’ nationality for this purpose.

Judges:

Ockleton DP

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00042

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268180

MH (Working Holidaymaker: Intention To Support) Bangladesh: IAT 25 Apr 2008

IAT The intention required by para 95(v) of HC 395 must be realistic and genuine and sufficient resources must be available (see TS [2008] UKAIT 00024). The intention does not, however, need to be comprehensive and an acknowledgement that other hospitality will be available is not therefore fatal to an application.

Judges:

Ockleton J

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00039

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268181

Secretary of State for the Home Department v IA (Pakistan): CA 22 May 2008

Appeal by the Home Secretary against allowing by the AIT of two of three conjoined appeals by Pakistani Ahmadis on the ground that they could not find safety in Rabwah from the religious persecution which they had good reason to fear if returned. Challenge to a new country guidance decision which the Home Secretary fears is capable of undermining almost every internal relocation answer to an Ahmadi asylum claim.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 580

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267974

NK (Ethiopia) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 Apr 2008

Application for extension of time in which to renew application for permission to appeal following refusal on the papers. Appeal from AIT on a reconsideration dismissing the two applicants’ (NK and BK) appeals from the Secretary of State’s rejection of their claims for asylum and related humanitarian and Human Rights Act Relief. The applicants are brother and sister, now aged 23 and 21, and citizens of Ethiopia, who arrived and were admitted to the United Kingdom as tourists on passports in their own names on 17 July 2005. Six weeks later they claimed asylum on the basis that they were members of an organisation called the African Initiatives for a Democratic World Order (‘AIDWO’), on whose behalf they had monitored the general election in Ethiopia on 15 May 2005, following which they had been arrested. They feared persecution if returned to Ethiopia because of their involvement with AIDWO and the fact that they had reported irregularities in the election and, as such, they would be arrested and persecuted for what they had said.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 528

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267907

YG (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Apr 2008

Application for permission to appeal from Asylum and Immigration Tribunal refusing application by YG (China) to remain in the United Kingdom on Article 8 grounds. Birth of child after entry.

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 530

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267915

AA (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Deparment: CA 22 May 2008

The applicant’s parents had been murdered for political reasons in Uganda. After arriving lawfully in the UK she was raped by her male employer and humiliated by her female employer. She was taken into the care of the local authority as a child. The defendant rejected her application for asylum.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 579

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267967

JZ (Colombia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Apr 2008

Renewed application for permission to appeal from AIT confirming decision dismissing his appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him and his claim on Article 8 grounds. The applicant successfully claimed asylum but was then convicted of importing cocaine and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for that very serious offence.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 517

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267903

Bosombi, Re: CA 11 Apr 2008

Appeal against dismissal of claim for habeas corpus. The appellant was held in detention since August 2006 under Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 on the order of the Secretary of State. Prior to that date he had been in detention serving a prison sentence.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 475

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267895

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 guidance applicable to the case when deciding whether to order the failed asylum applicant’s return. The applicant said that if returned to Greece his human rights concerns at being then returned to Afghanistan would not be considered.
Held: The Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The clause was not an absolute bar to consideration of other matters and evidence. However ‘I will not leave the case without making clear my view that the list system renders the United Kingdom’s compliance with ECHR Article 3 fragile. In the absence of individual examinations of the merits of individual cases by those responsible for specific executive and judicial decisions in those cases, the whole weight of compliance falls on the measures and systems in place for monitoring law and practice in the listed States, and does so in circumstances where government has no discretion to take a State off the list, but must seek main legislation. ‘

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 464, Times 20-May-2008, [2008] INLR 668, [2008] UKHRR 863, [2008] 3 WLR 1386, [2009] 1 All ER 116

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 3, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, the Dublin II Regulations

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Nasseri v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2-Jul-2007
The applicant had sought and been refused asylum. He was found to have come via Greece, and steps were put in place to return him there. He now complained that the provision which allowed no discretion to the respondent to look at his case when the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Cited – Assenov and Others v Bulgaria ECHR 28-Oct-1998
An allegation of violence by a police officer did require a thorough, impartial and careful investigation by a suitable and independent state authority: ‘The court considers that in these circumstances, where an individual raises an arguable claim . .
Cited – Banks v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2007
The applicants complained of maltreatment by prison officers in breach of article 3. The matter had been investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service which had decided not to prosecute. Civil proceedings had been raised and settled. The applicants . .
Cited – Taylor v Lancashire County Council and others CA 17-Mar-2005
The tenant occupied his farm under a lease limiting his use of the farm. He was found to be trading in breach of his covenant and a notice to quit was issued and possession sought. He argued that the 1986 Act was discriminatory and inadequate to . .
Cited – TI v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Mar-2000
The Dublin II Regulation did not absolve the United Kingdom from responsibility to ensure that a decision to expel an asylum seeker to another Member State did not expose him, at one remove, to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. ‘In . .
Cited – Jabari v Turkey ECHR 11-Jul-2000
A ‘rigorous scrutiny’ was to be conducted of a claim that an individual’s deportation to a third country would expose him to treatment prohibited by Article 3, before it could be rejected.
Held: ‘If the State is to avoid breach of Article 3 by . .
Cited – In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) HL 14-Mar-2002
Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act is not available where the suggested interpretation is contrary to express statutory words or is by implication necessarily contradicted by the statute. The judge’s task is to interpret, not to legislate. The proposed . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 – 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 . .
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 . .
At Court of Appeal – Nasseri v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2013
Questions set for the parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267656

MY (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Apr 2008

The claimant had presented his case and his evidence had been accepted as truthful, though his application was rejected. His appeal was rejected by the judge who said that his evidence was unreliable.
Held: A court having heard the applicant and believed him, it was not for a later court to find his evidence unreliable. That was a mistake of law. The judge should have restricted his consideration of reliability to the new evidence then presented. Permission to appeal was granted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Lloyd

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 477, Times 21-Apr-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267567

MA (Disputed Nationality) Ethiopia: IAT 17 Apr 2008

IAT In any case of disputed nationality the first question to be considered should be: ‘Is the person de jure a national of the country concerned?’. This question is to be answered by examining whether the person fulfils the nationality law requirements of his or her country. Matters such the text of nationality laws, expert evidence, relevant documentation, the appellant’s own testimony, agreement between the parties, Foreign Office letters, may all legitimately inform the assessment, In deciding the answer to be given, it may be relevant to examine evidence of what the authorities in the appellant’s country of origin have done in respect of his or her nationality.
If it is concluded that the person is de jure a national of the country concerned, then the next question to be considered is purely factual, i.e. ‘Is it reasonably likely that the authorities of the state concerned will accept the person, if returned, as one of its own nationals?’.
This decision replaces MA (Ethiopia – mixed ethnicity – dual nationality) Eritrea [2004] UKIAT 00324 .

Judges:

Storey, Allen SIJJ

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00032

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267096

DS (S 88: Meaning of ‘A Work Permit’) India: IAT 24 Apr 2008

IAT A work permit that has expired without being used is not an immigration document for the purposes of section 88(2) of the 2002 Act, whether or not its holder might be able to have it reprinted, reissued or renewed (compare MC (S88: meaning of a ‘passport’) [2008] UKAIT 00030).

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00035

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267095