Category: Immigration

KH (Article 15(C) Qualification Directive) Iraq CG: IAT 25 Mar 2008

(1) Key terms found in Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive are to be given an international humanitarian law (IHL) meaning. Subject to (3) below, the approach of the Tribunal in HH and others (Mogadishu: armed conflict: risk) Somalia CG [2008] UKAIT 00022 to this provision is confirmed.
(2) Article 15(c) does add to the scope of Article 15(a) and (b), but only in a limited way. It is limited so as to make eligible for subsidiary protection (humanitarian protection) only a subset of civilians: those who can show that as civilians they face on return a real risk of suffering certain types of serious violations of IHL caused by indiscriminate violence.
(3) Article 15(c) is not intended to cover threats that are by reason of all kinds of violence. It does not cover purely criminal violence or indeed any other type of non-military violence. Nor does it cover violence used by combatants which targets adversaries in a legitimate way.
(4) Where it is suggested that a person can qualify under Article 15(c) merely by virtue of being a civilian, the principal question that must be examined is whether the evidence as to the situation in his or her home area shows that indiscriminate violence there is of such severity as to pose a threat to life or person generally. If such evidence is lacking, then it will be necessary to identify personal characteristics or circumstances that give rise to a ‘serious and individual threat’ to that individual’s ‘life or person’.
(5) Given that the whole territory of Iraq is in a state of internal armed conflict for IHL purposes (that being conceded by the respondent in this case), a national of Iraq can satisfy the requirement within Article 15(c) that he or she faces return to a situation of armed conflict, but will still have to show that the other requirements of that provision are met.
(6) Neither civilians in Iraq generally nor civilians even in provinces and cities worst-affected by the armed conflict can show they face a ‘serious and individual threat’ to their ‘life or person’ within the meaning of Article 15(c) merely by virtue of being civilians.

Judges:

Ockleton DP, Story, Grubb SIJJ

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00023

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266674

IS (Marriages of Convenience) Serbia: IAT 11 Apr 2008

IAT The burden of proving that a marriage is not a ‘marriage of convenience’ for the purposes of the EEA Regulations rests on the appellant: but he is not required to discharge it in the absence of evidence of matters supporting a suspicion that the marriage is one of convenience (i.e. there is an evidential burden on the Respondent). See also AG [2007] UKAIT 00075. (2) An EEA family permit is not ‘Entry Clearance’ and so is not caught by s 85(5).

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00031

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266679

HH and others (Mogadishu: Armed Conflict: Risk) Somalia CG: IAT 28 Jan 2008

IAT (1) In deciding whether an international or internal armed conflict exists for the purposes of paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules and the Qualification Directive (but not for any wider purpose outwith the jurisdiction of the Tribunal), the Tribunal will pay particular regard to the definitions to be found in the judgments of international tribunals concerned with international humanitarian law (such as the Tadic jurisdictional judgment). Those definitions are necessarily imprecise and the identification of a relevant armed conflict is predominantly a question of fact.
(2) It will in general be very difficult for a person to succeed in a claim to humanitarian protection solely by reference to paragraph 339C(iv) of the Immigration Rules and article 15(c) of the Directive, ie. without showing a real risk of ECHR article 2 or article 3 harm.
(3) Applying the definitions drawn from the Tadic jurisdictional judgment, for the purposes of paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules and the Qualification Directive, on the evidence before us, an internal armed conflict exists in Mogadishu. The zone of conflict is confined to the city and international humanitarian law applies to the area controlled by the combatants, which comprises the city, its immediate environs and the TFG/Ethiopian supply base of Baidoa.
(4) A person is not at real risk of serious harm as defined in paragraph 339C by reason only of his or her presence in that zone or area.
(5) Neither the TFG/Ethiopians nor the Union of Islamic Courts and its associates are targeting clans or groups for serious harm. Whilst both sides in the conflict have acted from time to time in such a way as to cause harm to civilians, they are not in general engaging in indiscriminate violence.
(6) Clan support networks in Mogadishu, though strained, have not collapsed. A person from a majority clan or whose background discloses a significant degree of assimilation with or acceptance by a majority clan will in general be able to rely on that clan for support and assistance, including at times of displacement as a result of security operations, etc. Majority clans continue to have access to arms, albeit that their militias no longer control the city.
(7) A member of a minority clan or group who has no identifiable home area where majority clan support can be found will in general be at real risk of serious harm of being targeted by criminal elements, both in any area of former residence and in the event (which is reasonably likely) of being displaced as described in sub-paragraph (6) above. That risk is directly attributable to the person’s ethnicity and is a sufficient differential feature to engage the Refugee Convention, as well as article 3 of the ECHR and paragraph 339C/article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive (but for the first sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 339C).
(8) The evidence discloses no other relevant differentiating feature for the purposes of those Conventions and the Directive.
(9) The issue of whether a person from a minority clan or group falls within sub-paragraph (7) above will often need specific and detailed consideration. The evidence suggests that certain minority groups may be accepted by the majority clan of the area in question, so as to be able to call on protection from that clan. On the current evidence, it may therefore not be appropriate to assume that a finding of minority group status in southern Somalia is itself sufficient to entitle a person to international protection, particularly where a person’s credibility is otherwise lacking.
(10) Subject to sub-paragraph (9) above, outside Mogadishu and its immediate environs, the position in southern Somalia is not significantly different from that analysed in NM and Others (Lone women-Ashraf) Somalia CG [2005] UKIAT 00076
(11) Air travel to and from Mogadishu has not been significantly interrupted; nor has the mobile telephone network in southern Somalia.
(12) Subject to what is said above, NM continues to be country guidance. However, FK (Shekal Ghandershe) Somalia CG [UKIAT 00127 is not to be relied on as authority for the proposition that all members of the Sheikhal Jasira or the Sheikhal Ghandershe are as such entitled to international protection as unprotected minorities. The evidence on which the Tribunal in AA (Risk-Geledi-Benadiri Clan) Somalia [2002] UKIAT 05720 reached its conclusions is also now materially out of date and unreliable and should no longer be followed.

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00022

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266666

AA (Language Diagnosis: Use of Interpreters) Somalia: IAT 25 Mar 2008

IAT It is no part of an interpreter’s function to report on the language or dialect used. The expertise needed to identify a language or dialect is not typically the expertise of an interpreter. In any event, an interpreter should not be in the position of giving, or being asked to give, evidence on a contested issue.

Judges:

C M G Ockelton, DP, White IJ

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00029

Links:

Bailii

Immigration, Evidence

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266668

GO (Right of Appeal: Ss 89 and 92) Nigeria: IAT 25 Mar 2008

AIT A person who has entry clearance taking effect as leave to enter granted before arrival but whose leave is cancelled on arrival is not caught by section 89(1) because he has made no application for leave to enter but has no in-country right of appeal if section 92(3B) applies to him.

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00025

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266673

EN and AN (EEA Reg 12: British Citizens) Kenya: IAT 25 Mar 2008

IAT A British citizen, not being subject to any of the restrictions on residence in the UK implicit and explicit in the EEA Regulations, cannot be regarded as ‘residing in the UK in accordance with these Regulations’ for the purposes of reg 12, even if he has citizenship of another Member State as well.

Judges:

Ockleton DP, Deans SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00028, [2009] Imm AR 1

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266672

Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 Apr 2008

The claimant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a postgraduate doctor. The immigration rules which had been laid before Parliament in accordance with section 3(2) of the 1971 Act and which were current at the time of her application stated that a person who had only an overseas medical degree was (subject to other requirements) eligible to apply for an extension of leave as a postgraduate doctor. After the date of her application, the relevant rule was replaced by a rule which required an applicant to have completed a recognised United Kingdom degree. The issue was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to determine the application by reference to the new rule.
Held: Buxton LJ considered the rules setting the requirements for a course of education to qualify it for the admission of foreign nationals as students: ‘These rules are not to be construed with all the strictness applicable to the construction of a statute or a statutory instrument. They must be construed sensibly according to the natural meaning of the language that is employed. The rules give guidance to the various officers concerned and contain statements of general policy regarding the operation of the relevant immigration legislation.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 308, [2008] Imm AR 632, [2009] 1 WLR 126

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Adopted – AM (Ethiopia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer CA 16-Oct-2008
When applying for entry under a sponsorship arrangement, the three applicable rules disallowed third party support.
Laws LJ said: ‘The immigrant’s article 8 rights will (must be) protected by the Secretary of State and the court whether or not . .
Applied – De Oliveira, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be allowed to stay in the UK to complete her studies. The respondent said that her course did not meet the criteria, being for professional membership of the British Computer Society, and not at a formal degree level . .
Appeal from – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266557

AS and DD (Libya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 9 Apr 2008

The claimants were subject to intended deportation to Libya. The said that if returned they would be likely to be tortured, and that accordingly the return would infringe their rights. The Home Secretary said that a memorandum of understanding existed with the Libyan government which would protect the men on return.
Held: Proper proof, going beyond speculation, was required to establish that the risk existed and was substantial.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Smith

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 289, Times 16-Apr-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Cited – Saadi v Italy (United Kingdom intervening) ECHR 28-Feb-2008
(Grand Chamber) When considering the appropriateness of a deportation order to a country with which the deporting country had a memorandum of understanding that the destination country would not torture the deportee, a court must look beyond the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266515

Domi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 23 Jan 2008

Application for judicial review – whether the claimant can prove that the Secretary of State failed to serve him with the notice of the decision to remove him from the United Kingdom after it had been determined that his asylum claim had failed.

Judges:

Sir George Newman

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 571 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266498

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v Lucas, Regina (on The Application of): CA 16 Nov 2018

These appeals concern the lawfulness of the re-detention of foreign criminals, who are the subject of a deportation order and on immigration bail, for the purposes of their attending an interview with Nigerian officials at a detention centre to secure emergency travel documentation and thus facilitate their removal.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2541

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.630709

Poquiz, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 23 Jun 2015

Challenges to the Defendant’s decision refusing to allow the Claimant discretionary leave to remain in this country in order to pursue a compensation claim against a former employer.

Judges:

Mr Justice Simon

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1759 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.549416

UZ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 Oct 2014

The Upper Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear request for permission to proceed with judicial review where the application was by reference to the Secretary of State’s decisions to reject the application under the Legacy Programme.

Judges:

Davis, Christopher Clarke LJJ, Sir Bernard Rix

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1319, [2014] WLR(D) 429

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.537581

Mohamed v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Mar 2012

The court was asked ‘ does rule 317(i)(e) cover a case in which the very financial dependency which qualifies a parent or grandparent for entry to the United Kingdom is also what keeps their circumstances from being ‘the most exceptional compassionate circumstances’?’

Judges:

Longmore, Kitchin LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 331, [2012] WLR(D) 92

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.452202

AS (Somalia) and Another v Entry Clearance Officer, Addis Ababa and Another: CA 29 Feb 2008

When considering an appeal against the refusal of entry clearance, the court must consider only the circumstances as applied at the date of the refusal.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 149, Times 14-Apr-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002 82(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – MK (Somalia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer and Another CA 19-Dec-2008
The appellants’ mother had been thrown into a well after resisting attempts to rape her. They had then been cared for by another family member who had, along with her natural children been granted asylum here. They appealed refusal of asylum. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.266013

Aissaoui v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 7 Feb 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Preferred – Hussain (Zakir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Jan-2009
The applicant, a Bangladeshi, had entered the UK on a six month visa in 1991 and overstayed, applying for residence in 2006 on the basis of his long stay. He appealed refusal.
Held: The immigration tribunal had taken the simple evasion of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264533

A and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 21 Jan 2008

A complained of the unreasonable length of time for which had suffered administrative detention after completing a prison sentence and pending deportation.
Held: Mitting J discussed the detention: ‘In those circumstances, for continued detention to be lawful two questions have to be capable of being answered. First, by when does the Secretary of State expect to be able to deport A? Secondly, what is the basis for that expectation? Mr Patel, on instructions, is understandably unable to answer either of those questions, other than by the generality that the Secretary of State expects to be able to deport him within a reasonable time. Mr Patel realises that that begs the question. In my view, against the history that I have recited, there is simply no basis for concluding that A can be expected to be deported within the near future, nor can anybody, let alone the Secretary of State, give an answer to the first of those questions. An impasse has been reached in A’s case. It has been reached after the lapse of many months of detention. His detention has now become unlawful.I reach that conclusion notwithstanding that he has committed a serious criminal offence and that there is in his case the risk of absconding. Those are factors which have to be weighed in the balance. Were there grounds for believing that his application for emergency travel documents would soon be resolved favourably, then those factors would have led me to uphold the lawfulness of his detention. But absent any basis for concluding that he can soon be deported, those factors do not outweigh the claim that he has to conditional release . .’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 142 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – MH, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 14-Oct-2010
The claimant complained that his administrative detention for over 40 months had been unlawful. He now appealed against a finding that it had been lawful save for the final two months.
Held: The appeal failed. The period of time for which he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264126

Halil and Another v Davidson: HL 3 Jul 1980

The appellants, Turkish Cypriots, arrived on visitor permits, but after extensions, were given notice that their leave to stay would come to an end.
Held: The appeal failed. The notice given was in the form disapproved in Suthendram, but the adjudicator had been correct to refuse jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Salmon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen

Citations:

[1980] UKHL 13, [1979-80] Imm AR 164

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Suthendran v Immigration Appeal Tribunal HL 1977
The Appellant had been given leave under section 3(1)(b) of the 1971 Act to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for 12 months. Before it expired, he applied for his leave to be varied by way of extension under section 3(3)(a) of the Act. The . .
Applied – Regina v Immigration Appeal Adjudicator, ex parte Bhanji CA 4-Apr-1977
The appellant had been issued with a form stating when his leave to stay would expire.
Held: The ‘time to pack up’ leave given by form APP101 could not be taken as a leave de novo but only as a permission to remain as an indulgence, and not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.263819

ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Jan 2008

ZT applied for asylum. It was refused. On her appeal, the respondent certified that the claim was manifestly unfounded. She sought judicial review.
Held: The procedure laid down by rule 353 should have been applied to the further submissions made by ZT. Had that procedure been applied the Secretary of State might have come to a different decision. Accordingly her decision fell to be quashed so that she could consider ZT’s renewed application according to rule 353. Buxton LJ agreed with this result but, for his part, said that he would assume that the process engaged rule 353.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
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.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.263848

Hysi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 15 Jun 2005

The claimant appealed an order to be returned to Kosovo.
Held: As the son of a gypsy mother and and an Albanian father. As such, he would face persecution if returned if his mixed race parentage became known. If order to return he would be faced with either denying his parentage or living in seclusion. It would be unduly harsh to require the applicant to relocate to such a place.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 711, Times 23-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte and Similar CA 11-Oct-1996
The Court of Appeal could only deal with an appeal on points of law arising from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, it could only allow an appeal on points of law in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction, either . .
Cited – B v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Serbia and Montenegro-Kosovo) IAT 17-Jun-2003
. .
Cited – Nalliah Karanakaran v Secretary of State For The Home Department CA 25-Jan-2000
Where the applicant for asylum could show that members of his family had been killed or persecuted by the authorities, the level of proof required that he would be under threat was not the normal civil standard of proof, but that of a reasonable . .
Cited – Jonah v Secretaty of State for the Home Department 1985
The Ghanaian applicant asylum seeker had been a senior trade union official. He had lost his job and been ill-treated following political changes in Ghana. He had hidden in a remote village before seeking asylum in this country. The adjudicator . .
Cited – AE and FE v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged orders denying them asylum status. The result would be to require them to return home but subject to relocation within a different geographical area.
Held: For the purposes of considering refugee status, the . .
Cited – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.226230

Practice Statement (Judicial review: Asylum Support): Admn 13 Feb 2004

Where an asylum applicant sought to have reviewed a decision not to provide support by way of benefits, the respondent Secretary of State was to be given an automatic extension of the time limit for replying to the application. Interim relief could be granted to the applicant and so he would not generally be prejudiced by this arrangement.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-2004

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.194795

ASK, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 16 Jul 2019

Appeals raising important issues concerning the powers of the Respondent Secretary of State to detain those who suffer from mental health conditions pending removal from the United Kingdom.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.639659

Thirukumar, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 21 Dec 1988

Applications for judicial review which challenge the validity of refusals of leave to enter the United Kingdom by an immigration officer and, effectively, the rejection by the Secretary of State of their applications for asylum.

Judges:

Parker LJ, Henry J

Citations:

[1988] EWHC 1 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263366

AN and NN (S.83, Asylum Grounds Only) Albania: IAT 10 Dec 2007

IAT JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1402 has no impact on the scope of s. 83. As is clear from the relevant legislation and Immigration Rules, in an appeal under s.83 of the 2002 Act the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider non-asylum grounds; and, if an appeal is allowed on asylum grounds, it cannot be allowed on humanitarian protection grounds.

Citations:

[2007] UKAIT 00097

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83

Citing:

Cited – JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 4-Oct-2006
The Tribunal had concluded in JM (Rule 62(7); human rights unarguable) Liberia * [2006] UKAIT 00009 that a human rights claim was not justiciable on a variation of leave appeal because in such a case the appellant’s removal was not imminent, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262322

Saber v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 12 Dec 2007

The applicant sought asylum, saying that it would be unsafe to order his return. The issue before the House was as to when the need for protection should be assesed where, as here, there had been a series of appeals over time.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘Common sense indicates that the final decision, whenever it is made, should be based on the most up to date evidence that is available. Facts which are of historical interest only do not provide a sound basis for a determination that an asylum seeker is entitled to protection now.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 57, [2008] 3 All ER 97, 2003 SLT 1409, (2008) 158 NLJ 30, 2008 SC (HL) 132, 2008 SCLR 151 171, (2008) 152(1) SJLB 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/230) 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 21-Jan-2009
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Scotland

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262256

Rudi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Dec 2007

Carnwath LJ said of the ‘near-miss’ argument: ‘This argument is, in my view, based on a misconception. The Secretary of State is of course entitled to have a policy. The promulgation of the policy normally creates a legitimate expectation that it will be applied to those falling within its scope unless there is good reason for making an exception. So much is trite law. It is also trite law that the existence of the policy does not excuse the decision-maker from due consideration of cases falling outside it. However, the law knows no ‘near-miss’ principle. There is no presumption that those falling just outside the policy should be treated as though they were within it, or given special consideration for that reason.’

Judges:

Carnwath, Wall LJJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1326

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rudi v Same HL 25-Jun-2008
Each claimant had arrived here with their parents, and stayed for several years. They were excluded from the scheme allowing families who had been here more than three years to stay here, because they had attained 18 and were no longer dependant on . .
Cited – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262162

AG (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Nov 2007

The threshold requirement referable to the nature of the consequences was ‘not a specially high one’
Sedley LJ discussed the Huang case: ‘The effect of their Lordships’ decision (and, if we may say so, the intended effect of this court’s decision) in Huang has thus not been to introduce a new interpretation of article 8 but to clarify and reiterate a well understood one. While its practical effect is likely to be that removal is only exceptionally found to be disproportionate, it sets no formal test of exceptionality and raises no hurdles beyond those contained in the article itself.’
There was no legal test of exceptionality as a surrogate for the Article 8 decision: ‘The fact that in the great majority of cases the demands of immigration control are likely to make removal proportionate and so compatible with article 8 is a consequence, not a precondition, of the statutory exercise. No doubt in this sense successful article 8 claims will be the exception rather than the rule; but to treat exceptionality as the yardstick of success is to confuse effect with cause.’

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1285, [2008] 2 All ER 28

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Norris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261951

Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 23 Nov 2005

Application for leave to appeal – granted.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1645

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Feb-2006
Husband and wife sought leave to remain to care for the husband’s father who was settled as a refugee, but suffered chronic depression and presented a high suicide risk.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.237494

Regina (G) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 18 Nov 2004

The applicant, when she first made her claim for asylum said she was born in 1984. Before coming to the UK she had first applied for asylum in Italy. She was detained for removal to Italy. At this point she sought to assert that she had in fact been born in 1988, was therefore a child, was living with her older sister, and that removal would interfere disproportionately with her human right to family life.
Held: The screening process was to have been carried out in Italy. That process fell to be conducted only once, and by reference to the condition applicable at the time of making that application. A later situation of living with her sister could not change that. She had not in Italy asserted her relationship with her sister, and could not now change the basis of her claim.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Times 15-Dec-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (G) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 13-Apr-2005
The claimant had first sought asylum saying she was born in 1984. On being refused, she said she was born in 1988 and was only 15 years old, and that her removal and return to Somalia would breach the regulation, and interfere with her right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.221678

Zenovics v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 14 Nov 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1736

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Starred Zenovics (Right of Appeal, Certification) Latvia IAT 5-May-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Zenovics, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 7-Mar-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.218576

MAB (Iraq) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2019

The court was asked whether, on the findings made, it was open to the First Tier Tribunal to conclude that that the appellant doctor was excluded from protection by the Refugee Convention on the ground that the medical assistance he gave to victims of torture, knowing that some of them might be tortured again, meant that he was complicit in their torture and thus liable for a crime against humanity.

Judges:

Lord Justice Hamblen

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health Professions

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.639664

Lauzikas, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 4 May 2018

Challenge to detention of EU citizen pending deportation after completion of sentence. Proportionality.

Judges:

Michael Fordham QC

Citations:

[2018] 3 CMLR 31, [2018] EWHC 1045 (Admin), [2018] 4 All ER 141, [2018] WLR(D) 278, [2018] 1 WLR 5299

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, Council Directive 2004/38/EC, Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.614982