Category: Immigration

Westminster City Council and Another v Morris; Regina (Badu) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 14 Oct 2005

The claimant sought housing assistance. She had a child. She was subject to immigration control. She complained that when considering her application, the Act required the authority to disregard her responsibiltes to her children.
Held: The Act was inconsistent with her right to family life. The declaration of incompatibility was upheld. The section was an interference in the right, but no sufficient justification for the interference was established: ‘a policy objective of driving a British parent out of the country because of the immigration status of her child was not one his Lordhsip was prepared to attribute to Parliament.’

Judges:

Auld, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1184

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 185(40, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Wychavon District Council and Another Admn 20-Dec-2005
The claimant complained that the law which protected an occupier of a dwelling house from a temporary stop notice did not apply to those living in caravans, and that this was discriminatory.
Held: The claim failed. ‘usually a change of use of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231234

RI (EC Law, Chen, Effect on Proportionality) Uganda: IAT 31 Aug 2005

IAT The case raises questions about the extent, if any, to which a non-EEA national with family ties to EEA nationals residing here can invoke their free movement rights in arguing that her own removal would be disproportionate in terms of Article 8. The ambit of the ECJ judgment in Chen, and of its manifestation at paragraph 257C of the Immigration Rules, is also considered, in the light of a contention that the requirement of self-sufficiency is not absolute. The case is being reported for these reasons.

Citations:

[2005] UKAIT 00125

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229916

AC (Witness With Refugee Status, Effect) Somalia: IAT 18 Aug 2005

IAT This decision deals with the proper approach to the evidence of a witness who, it is alleged on similar facts to those put forward by the appellant, has been granted refugee status. The fact of the grant is capable of carrying weight but the grant is not to be equated with an Immigration Judge’s determination following a hearing. An Immigration Judge’s decision is likely to be fully reasoned and made after the evidence in support has been tested. In contrast a grant of status by the Secretary of State is often an administrative decision based only on the papers.

Judges:

Letter, Mather SIJJ

Citations:

[2005] UKAIT 00124, [2005] Imm AR 714

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229915

LL (Falun Gong, Convention Reason, Risk) China CG: IAT 9 Aug 2005

This determination is reported for its consideration of the availability of ‘imputed political opinion’ as a 1951 Convention reason as described in paragraphs 26-33, and of the risk to Falun Gong practitioners at various levels as described in paragraphs 34-38.

Citations:

[2005] UKAIT 00122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229374

HS (Homosexuals: Minors, Risk on Return) Iran: IAT 4 Aug 2005

IAT This case is reported for what we say about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran, including minors, and the assessment of risk on return, in the light of the background evidence that we received; some of which post dates that which formed the basis for the determination in RM and BB (Homosexuals) Iran CG [2005] UKIAT 00117 (8 July 2005), and which determination has guided our deliberations and decision making.

Citations:

[2005] UKAIT 00120

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229373

Regina on the Application of Ruslanas Bagdanavicius, Renata Bagdanaviciene v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 11 Nov 2003

Failed Roma asylum applicants challenged an order for their return to Lithuania. There had been family objections to the mixed marriage leaving them at risk of violence from the local mafia, and an order for their return would infringe their article 3 rights.
Held: The threshold of risk test which was to be applied in judging the claim was the same as would apply to testing an assertion of having a well founded fear of persecution. There is a ‘broad symmetry between the asylum test of a well-founded fear of persecution for an Asylum Convention reason and the Article 3 test of a real risk of exposure to ill treatment that it proscribes’

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lady Justice Arden The Lord Chief Justice Of England

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1605, Times 21-Nov-2003, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1207

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bagdanavicius, Bagdanaviciene v the Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Apr-2003
The applicants sought asylum, saying they had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment by Lithuanian Mafiosi. The claims were rejected as clearly unfounded, denying any right to an appeal.
Held: The court could examine the basis upon which the . .

Cited by:

Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Atkinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s certification under s94 that his cliam for asylum was hopeless. He said that he had acted as an informer against criminal gangs in Jamaica, and that the state of Jamacia could not provide him . .
Cited – LD (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Jul-2004
The claimant arrived in England on a six month pass. He then applied for asylum, but his claim was rejected. He later resisted an attempt to remove him on human rights grounds. The court considered the guidance from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal . .
Appeal from – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Cited – Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Jun-2005
The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will.
Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.187720

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Maheshwaran: CA 14 Feb 2002

The applicant, and asylum seeker, had given his evidence. Though no challenge had been made, and no sufficient reasons given, it was not accepted by the adjudicator.
Held: The burden lay on the asylum seeker to establish his case. A failure to put to a party to litigation a point which is decided against him can be grossly unfair and lead to injustice, but the requirements of fairness are very much conditioned by the facts of each case. There were discrepancies in the applicant’s account, but it did not follow that his account was not to be believed. Nevertheless, the decision was one within the range of possible decisions on the evidence. No error of law had been shown, and the adjudicator’s evidence was re-instated.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Chadwick, And, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gunn Admn 22-Jan-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.167612

Daljit Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: SCS 20 Nov 1998

Judges:

Lady Cosgrove

Citations:

[1998] ScotCS 72

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Petition of Daljit Singh v The Right Honourable Jack Straw, MP for Judicial Review SCS 7-Jan-2000
The point made by Collins J in Chugtai may be particularly relevant where ‘a question of credibility arises which has to be resolved by an adjudicator”. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Immigration

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.169756

Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department: IHCS 27 Jan 1999

It was wrong to say that an asylum seeker had the option of internal flight where, having once fled, he had been informed that he was being sought by the police and would be returned to the part where he had a well founded fear of persecution.

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.89279

YD (Turkey) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 8 Feb 2006

The court has its own inherent discretionary power to prevent the removal of a failed asylum seeker from the country pending an application for leave to appeal out of time against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 52, Times 28-Feb-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.238357

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Akaeke: CA 27 Jul 2005

The applicant sought asylum. The respondent delayed dealing with the application and her permit expired. She was to be returned to Nigeria from where she would have to apply again.
Held: Where because of the delay, her renewed application would be granted on the basis that to refuse it would interfere with her human rights to family life, it was not proportionate to have to return first to Nigeria to renew the application. A rigid policy of temporary exclusions was innecessary to maintain confidence in the system of immigration control. Carnwath LJ spoke of the effect of delay: ‘Once it is accepted that unreasonable delay on the part of the Secretary of State is capable of being a relevant factor, then the weight to be given to it in the particular case was a matter for the tribunal’

Judges:

Carnwath, Chadwick, Rix LJJ

Citations:

Times 23-Sep-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 947, [2005] INLR 575

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229029

R (Iran) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 27 Jul 2005

The court gave guidance on the powers available to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal as constituted under the 2002 Act. The powers were broadly those of the former Immigration Appeal tribunal. The Tribunal had power to admit new evidence after a demonstrated error. There is only limited scope for challenging a First-tier Tribunal’s findings of fact on appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law. A challenge is sustainable in only four types of case. These are where the tribunal has (i) made perverse or irrational material findings of fact; (ii) failed to take into account and/or resolve conflicts of fact or opinion on material matters; (iii) given weight to immaterial factors; or (iv) made a mistake as to a material fact, which could be established by objective and uncontentious evidence, and which results in unfairness.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Chadwick LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 982, Times 19-Aug-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229027

HC v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Jul 2005

The applicant challenged refusal of his asylum application saying that the court had failed to take account of the fact that as a homosexual moslem, he would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The IAT had not properly recognised that at the time of the appeal its jurisdiction was limited to points of law only. Even so a point of law had arisen, which the IAT had not dealt with: ‘It has quite improperly carried out a fresh assessment of the merits of the appellant’s asylum and human rights claims. That is not its task under the 2002 Act. ‘ The adjudicator had failed to recognise properly the difficulties which would be faced by a homosexual muslim in the Lebanon. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Scott Baker Sir Mark Potter President of the Family Division

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 893

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Miftari v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-May-2005
The court emphasised the limited nature of the IAT’s jurisdiction under the 2002 Act, which is now restricted to considering points of law only: ‘Since the IAT now has jurisdiction to determine only points of law, it cannot put itself in the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Christiana Robinson (Aka John) Admn 7-Dec-1998
. .
Cited – Railtrack Plc (In Railway Administration) v Guinness Limited CA 20-Feb-2003
The case involved an appeal from the Land’s Tribunal arbitration award setting compensation for land to be acquired. The question was whether the value should have been that acceptable to a willing seller, or to a ‘a company regulated and subsidised . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
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 . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur HL 20-Dec-2000
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228942

MG (Assessing Interference with Private Life) Serbia and Montenegro: IAT 30 Jun 2005

Sympathy for and admiration of an individual do not as such enhance or otherwise affect that person’s rights under article 8. Errors of law can occur if fact-finders fail to address question (2) of Lord Bingham’s five questions in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27.

Judges:

Lane SIJ

Citations:

[2005] UKAIT 00113

Links:

Bailii

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228487

LM (Relocation, Khartoum, AE Reaffirmed) Sudan: IAT 30 Jun 2005

IAT Return to Sudan safe for man with no political profile, eastern Sudanese (African origin) returning with young family. AE applied and US State Department Report (not before Tribunal in AE) considered. Must show individual risk to appellant; Darfurian origin or African ethnicity alone insufficient. No risk at Convention level to non-Darfurian Sudanese.
Conditions in camps not ideal but evidence not sufficient to establish that internal relocation to internally displaced person camp in Khartoum alone enough to meet ECHR Article 2 and 3. Risk in internally displaced person camps limited on present evidence to students, lawyers, merchants, traders or those with perceived rebel profile who are of African ethnicity. Those with family members still in Sudan required to prove need to use internally displaced persons’ camp.]

Judges:

Gleeson SIJ

Citations:

[2005] UKAIT 00114

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228486

SM (Section 8: Judge’s Process) Iran: IAT 5 Jul 2005

Even where section 8 applies, an Immigration Judge should look at the evidence as a whole and decide which parts are more important and which less. Section 8 does not require the behaviour to which it applies to be treated as the starting-point of the assessment of credibility.

Judges:

Mr C M G Ockelton (Deputy President), Miss E Arfon-Jones (Deputy President), Mr A Jordan (Senior Immigration Judge)

Citations:

[2006] INLR 149, [2005] Imm AR 673, [2005] UKAIT 00116

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228492

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 28 Feb 2005

Open determination on the second review of the certificate issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the case of A under section 21(1) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Judges:

Justice Ouseley

Citations:

[2005] UKSIAC 1/2002

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21(1)

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228381

Ali, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 28 Oct 1999

Rules 281(v) and 297(iv) did not preclude long-term maintenance by third parties as supporting an application for permission for a family member to enter the UK.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 830, [2000] INLR 89, [2000] Imm AR 134

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228315

Starred Gomez (Non-State Actors: Acero-Garces Disapproved) (Colombia): IAT 24 Nov 2000

Dr Storey said: ‘It will always be necessary to examine whether or not the normal lines of political and administrative responsibility have become distorted by history and events in that particular country. This perception also explains why refugee law has come to recognise that in certain circumstances ‘neutrality’ can constitute a political opinion. In certain circumstances, for example where both sides operate simplistic ideas of political loyalty and political treachery, fence-sitting can be considered a highly political act.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Collins (President), Dr HH Storey, G Warr

Citations:

[2000] UKIAT 00007, [2001] 1 WLR 549, [2000] INLR 549

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – RT (Zimbabwe) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimants said it would be wrong to return them to Zimbabwe where they would be able to evade persecution only by pretending to a loyalty to, and enthusiasm for the current regime.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeals failed. The HJ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227126

Starred Slimani (Content of Adjudicator Determination) Algeria: IAT 12 Dec 2001

Citations:

[2001] UKIAT 00009, [2001] UKIAT 01TH00092

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227136

Starred Gardi (Asylum, KAA, Internal Flight Alternative) Iraq: IAT 16 Nov 2001

Citations:

[2001] UKIAT 00017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gardi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-May-2002
The applicant was an ethnic Kurd who claimed asylum, having fled Iraq.
Held: To establish a claim, he must show that because of a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, he was outside his country and unable or, because of . .
See Also – Azad Gardi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) CA 22-Oct-2002
The Home Secretary sought to appeal against the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Held: The IAT had been reviewing a decision of an adjudicator in Scotland. Accordingly, any appeal against the IAT decision lay to the Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227133

AS and others (Sikh, Risk on Return, KK Followed) Afghanistan: IAT 31 Dec 2004

IAT Appeals from decisions of adjudicators, either dismissing or allowing asylum and human rights appeals by Sikh citizens of Afghanistan. The relevant point of law is whether the adjudicator’s decision was in accordance with the view since reached by the Tribunal on the situation facing such persons on return, regardless of their personal history or circumstances, in KK [2004] UKIAT 00258, described by the Tribunal in the course of that decision as ‘the irreducible minimum case’. It is neither desirable nor in accordance with the law for there to be different competing views amongst the appellate authorities on such cases, whether or not there was any apparent error of law on the face of the adjudicator’s decision as and when given: see Shirazi [2003] EWCA Civ 1562.

Judges:

John Freeman VP

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00333

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227168

AH (Sufficiency of Protection, Sunni Extremists) Pakistan CG: IAT 31 Dec 2002

IAT ‘The Appellant is citizen of Pakistan born on 15 June 1970 who arrived in the United Kingdom on 30 March 2001 using a valid Pakistani passport and UK visa and was given six months leave to enter the United Kingdom on the usual visiting conditions. On 7 June 2001 during the currency of that lawful entry the Appellant claimed asylum and was subsequently interviewed on behalf of the Secretary of State. His wife and his daughter who had accompanied him were treated as his dependants.
For the reasons set out in a letter dated 6 August 2001 the asylum application was refused. On the same day, leave having been curtailed on the basis of deception on entry, the Secretary of State gave notice of his decision for the removal of the Appellant to Pakistan following refusal of the asylum application.’

Judges:

Mr J Barnes – Chairman

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 05862

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227154

PK (Article 8, Return, Marriage-Refugee) Democratic Republic of Congo: IAT 13 Nov 2002

The Appellant is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He has been given leave to appeal the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision to give directions for his removal from the United Kingdom and to refuse asylum.

Judges:

Moulden Ch

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 05220

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227149

Starred FD (Protection, UnMIK, Arif, IFA, Art1D) (Kosovo) CG: IAT 30 Aug 2000

The claimant resisted his return to Albania after refusal of asylum. He asserted a well founded fear of perscution.
Held: The Tribunal summarised the position as follow: ‘(i) Protection offered by UNMIK arid KFOR is, in law, capable of being ‘the protection of his country’, within the meaning of Article IA(2) of the Convention, for a citizen of the Federal republic of Yugoslavia who comes from Kosovo.
(ii) Kosovo, however, is not capable of being the country of a person’s nationality within the meaning of that Article.
(iii) The ‘reversed burden’ in Arif applies only where it is accepted that the claimant was in the past a refugee, and is capable of being discharged by any evidence which could support a finding of a relevant change of circumstances.
(iv) No questions of ‘internal flight’, ‘reasonableness’, or ‘undue hardship’ arise when a person has no well-founded fear of persecution in his own home area.
(v) Article ID of the Convention does not apply to persons receiving assistance from UNMIK and KFOR.’

Judges:

Ockleton DP

Citations:

[2000] UKIAT 00001, [2000] INLR 372, [2000] Imm AR 652

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227123

OT (Somalia): IAT 15 Jan 2002

IAT ‘The appellant is a citizen of Somalia who has been given leave to appeal the determination of an adjudicator (Miss A L Sawetz) dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision to give directions for his removal from the United Kingdom and to refuse him asylum. ‘

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 01TH01347

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227137

Kugathas v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 21 Jan 2003

Sedley LJ considered the circumstances where the Secretary of state should take into account the defendant’s article 8 human rights when considering deportation after serving a sentence of imprisonment: ‘Generally, the protection of family life under Article 8 involves cohabiting dependants, such as parents and their dependant minor children. Whether it extends to other relationships depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Relationships between adults, a mother and her 33 year old son in the present case, would not necessarily acquire the protection of Article 8 of the Convention without evidence of further elements of dependency, involving more than the normal emotional ties.’ and ‘ . . neither blood ties nor the concern and affection that ordinarily go with them are, by themselves or together, in my judgment enough to constitute family life’
Arden LJ said: ‘There is no presumption that a person has a family life, even with the members of a person’s immediate family. The court has to scrutinise the relevant factors. Such factors include identifying who are the near relatives of the appellant, the nature of the links between them and the appellant, the age of the appellant, where and with whom he has resided in the past, and the forms of contact he has maintained with the other members of the family with whom he claims to have a family life.
because there is no presumption of family life, in my judgment a family life is not established between an adult child and his surviving parent or other siblings unless something more exists than normal emotional ties: See S v United Kingdom (1984) 40DR 196 and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v the United Kingdom [1985] 7 EHRR 471. Such ties might exist if the appellant were dependant on his family or visa versa.’

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Arden LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 31, [2003] INLR 170, [2003] All ER (D) 144

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey) CA 27-May-2010
The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm.
Held: . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227089

Mongoto v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 May 2005

Laws LJ referred to the argument that the applicant could derive ‘analogical support’ from the Concession, even though it did not in terms apply to him as a ‘spurious’ argument.

Judges:

Ward, Laws, Smith LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227085

Kashmiri v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1 Mar 2005

The appellate immigration authority must decide for itself whether the impugned decision is lawful and, if not, but only if not, reverse it.

Judges:

Judge, Laws and Latham LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 105, [2006] QB 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.223081

Y, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Jul 2013

Challenge to refusal of indefinite leave to remain, saying that a return would infringe his articles 3 and 5 rights beause of his mental condition.

Judges:

Anthony Thornton QC J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2127 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.513530

Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 17 Oct 2008

The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Held: The certificate was quashed. The respondent was wrong to say that he had already made a human rights claim. Section 94 (5) (b) clearly specifies that the act of removal from the United Kingdom to the removing country is a fact which can, and does, trigger article 8 claims. So that shows that it is the consequences of removal in the United Kingdom which can be relevant. The respondent had failed to take proper account of the position of the applicant’s family involvements and the impact which his removal would have on his children, partner and on his disabled mother. The respondent must consider the claimant’s application again.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2474 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(3), 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 – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 6-Oct-2005
. .
Cited – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
Cited – Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Anirah v Same Admn 23-May-2008
Both claimants applied to the defendant Secretary of State to have deportation orders made against them revoked on asylum or human rights grounds. These applications were rejected. Both had previously made asylum or human rights claims that were the . .
Cited – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Apr-2006
Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language . .
Cited – WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-2006
The court considered the proper role of the Secretary of state and of the court when failed asylum seekers produced new material arguing that it was a fresh claim. Buxton LJ said: ‘has the Secretary of State asked himself the correct question? The . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – Maslov v Austria ECHR 22-Mar-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.277015

Saliu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Mar 2002

The Tribunal had dismissed the immigrant’s appeal from an adjudicator although it criticised his determination in a number of respects. We announced in Court that we had decided to remit the case to the Tribunal.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.168090

Khadir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Jun 2005

The applicant who had entered England hidden in a lorry, claimed asylum, and had his claim rejected. It was said that as an Iraqi Kurd, he would be safe in the Kurdish area of Iraq. No safe means had been found of ensuring his return over some four years, and there was no immediate prospect of one being found. He now said that he should be granted leave to enter, having been detained all this time.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Lord Brown said: ”For my part I have no doubt that Mance LJ was right to recognise a distinction between the circumstances in which a person is potentially liable to detention (and can properly be temporarily admitted) and the circumstances in which the power to detain can in any particular case properly be exercised. It surely goes without saying that the longer the delay in effecting someone’s removal the more difficult will it be to justify his continued detention meanwhile. But that is by no means to say that he does not remain ‘liable to detention’. What I cannot see is how the fact that someone has been temporarily admitted rather than detained can be said to lengthen the period properly to be regarded as ‘pending . . his removal’. . . Pending’ in paragraph 16 means no more than ‘until’. The word is being used as a preposition, not as an adjective. Paragraph 16 does not say that the removal must be ‘pending’, still less that it must be ‘impending’. So long as the Secretary of State remains intent upon removing the person and there is some prospect of achieving this, paragraph 16 authorises detention meanwhile. Plainly it may become unreasonable actually to detain the person pending a long delayed removal (ie throughout the whole period until removal is finally achieved). But that does not mean that the power has lapsed. He remains ‘liable to detention’ and the ameliorating possibility of his temporary admission in lieu of detention arises under para 21.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham Of Cornhill, Lord Hope Of Craighead, Lord Rodger Of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale Of Richmond, Lord Brown Of Eaton-Under-Heywood

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 39, Times 17-Jun-2005, [2005] 3 WLR 1, [2006] 1 AC 207, [2005] INLR 538, [2005] 4 All ER 114

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch2

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 . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Regina on the Application of Khadir CA 3-Apr-2003
The Secretary of State appealed an order requiring him to reconsider refusal of exceptional leave to remain. The applicant was an Iraqi Kurd. It was not possible to make immediate arrangements for repatriation after the order.
Held: The . .
Cited – Re Wasfi Suleman Mahmod Admn 1995
The applicant was an Iraqi who had been granted asylum in Germany. On entering England as a visitor he was found in possession of opium and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a recommendation for deportation. He was served with a deportation . .
Cited – Barker v Barking Havering and Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (Warley Hospital) and Anorther CA 30-Jul-1998
A person who is liable to be detained in a hospital by virtue of an application or order under that Act may either be actually detained or given leave of absence. While on leave of absence it may well be that the patient’s disorder is not such that . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Cited – I, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 28-Jun-2002
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
At First instance – Hwez and Khadir v Secretary of State for the Home Departmentand Another Admn 29-Jul-2002
. .

Cited by:

Cited – SK, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Jan-2008
The claimant was a Zimbabwean National who was to be removed from the country. He was unlawfully held in detention pending removal. He sought damages for false imprisonment. He had been held over a long period pending decisions in the courts on the . .
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226747

Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2005

The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will.
Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in clear violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’). As a practice, it is not peculiar to Sierra Leone, but it so widespread there and so bound up in the culture and traditions of that country at all levels that it causes difficulties in claims for asylum by young Sierra Leonean girls who fear it. As a clear violation of their Article 3 right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, it would undoubtedly amount to persecution in the general sense of that word. But, for young girls in Sierra Leone, seeking asylum in another country because they fear it, is it persecution for a Refugee Convention reason, namely because they belong to a ‘particular social group’? To establish her claim the applicant had to establish that she was a member of a particular social group. She had said that this group constituted young uncircumcised females This was not capable of being a ‘particular social group’ in law as required, and the claim failed. The respondent had in any event since granted her leave to enter on humanitarian grounds.

Judges:

Auld, Chadwick, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2005] 1 WLR 3773, [2005] EWCA Civ 680, Times 16-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
Cited – Hoxha and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Mar-2005
The claimants sought to maintain their claims for asylum. They had fled persecution, but before their claims for asylum were determined conditions in their home country changed so that they could no longer be said to have a well founded fear of . .
Cited – Applicant A and Another v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another 1997
(High Court of Australia) A Chinese asylum seeker was not entitled to refugee status on the basis of well-founded fear of persecution by forcible sterilisation by reason of his membership of a ‘particular social group’, namely all fathers of . .
Cited – Chun Lan Liu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Mar-2005
The applicant for refugee status said she had a well founded fear of persecution if returned to China, saying that as a pregnant mother of a third child, the foetus had been removed at eight months against her will. She had refused sterilisation, . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Ruslanas Bagdanavicius, Renata Bagdanaviciene v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Nov-2003
Failed Roma asylum applicants challenged an order for their return to Lithuania. There had been family objections to the mixed marriage leaving them at risk of violence from the local mafia, and an order for their return would infringe their article . .
Cited – Bagdanavicius, Bagdanaviciene v the Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Apr-2003
The applicants sought asylum, saying they had been subjected to repeated ill-treatment by Lithuanian Mafiosi. The claims were rejected as clearly unfounded, denying any right to an appeal.
Held: The court could examine the basis upon which the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Skenderaj CA 26-Apr-2002
The applicant sought asylum, claiming to be a target of an Albanian blood feud. He appealed a finding that his claim was not for a Convention reason, and did not amount to a claim of a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his membership of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v K, Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought asylum, fearing persecution as members of a social group. The fear of persecution had been found to be well founded, but that persecution was seen not to arise from membership of a particular social group.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226155

I and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 27 May 2005

The applicants had sought asylum. The respondent wished to detain them. They said that they were under the age of 18, which would require them to be released. The respondent obtained expert reports from a senior consultant paediatrician experienced in this issee. Those reports confirmed them to be likely to be under 18. The respondent did not release them, but detained them for a further month obtaining a report from a social worker. That report confirmed the report of the paediatrician.
Held: The respondent’s behaviour was irrational. It was not reasonable, having taken advice at the senior level, to have then continued the detention of the youths awaiting a report from a much less well qualified social worker.

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1025 (Admin), Times 10-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council Admn 14-Jul-2003
The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226110

Sinnarasa, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 19 May 2005

Mitting J said: ‘The question which I have to consider is whether on the assumed facts I have recited the claimant cannot, on any view, succeed or her claim is so wholly lacking in substance that it is bound to fail.’ and ‘I have found this a far from easy question to answer. This case, in my view, comes very close, indeed, to the ward line but for the features that I am about to identify I have no doubt that the Secretary of State’s certification was lawful, rational and should be upheld. The features that, in my view, just take this case out of that category are these.’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1126 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Nadanasikamani v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Jan-2006
. .
Cited – Yogachandran, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Feb-2006
The applicant appealed rejection of his claim for asylum.
Held: ‘the claimant has wholly failed to demonstrate, even to the very low level of possibility which suffices to quash a certificate, that there is any risk to him if he is returned to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226112

G, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 13 Apr 2005

Appeal dismissal of application for judicial review of a certificate of the Home Secretary under Section 93 the appellant’s claim to remain in this country on human rights grounds was clearly unfounded.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 546

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 93

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226050

EA (Family Visitor, Directions, Mistake of Fact, Unfairness) Ghana: IAT 1 Jun 2005

This case is reported for what we say about the exercise of the power to make directions to give effect to a determination, pursuant to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and pursuant to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ( as amended by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004); to highlight the procedure to be followed at a reconsideration hearing, including the requirements to be met in order that fresh evidence may be considered at such a hearing, thus widening the ambit of the appeal in this case, to include mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness, and to highlight certain provisions of legislation and rules relating to family visitors, their rights of appeal, and Entry Clearance Officer practice in that regard.

Citations:

[2005] UKAIT 00108

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226006