Category: Immigration

IM (Medical Facilities, Bensaid) Kosovo: IAT 17 Jul 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 02727

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221864

SJ (Article 8 Proportionality, PTSD, Bosnian Muslim, Medical Facilities) Bosnia CG: IAT 18 Jul 2002

‘The Appellant has been granted leave to appeal to the Tribunal against the determination of an Adjudicator . . who allowed the Respondent’s appeal against the Appellant’s decision directing his removal from the United Kingdom and refusing asylum.’

Judges:

D K Allen Ch

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 02819

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221877

PS (Risk, Mixed Ethnicity, Tutsi) Democratic Republic of Congo: IAT 25 Jul 2002

Appeal by a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo against the determination of an Adjudicator who dismissed his appeal against the Respondent’s decision giving directions for his removal following the refusal of his claim for asylum.

Judges:

H J E Latter, Ch

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 03061

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221875

SS (Moslem, False Charges) India CG: IAT 1 Aug 2002

Appeal, with leave, against the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Respondent to issue removal and refuse asylum.
Held: Arising from the outstanding charges against him, there was no real risk on return to India of persecution for his religion contrary to the 1951 Convention, or of a breach of his human rights under Articles 2, 3 or 6 of the 1950 Convention. For these reasons this appeal was dismissed.

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 03340

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221903

LS (Persecution, Cio) Zimbabwe CG: IAT 1 Aug 2002

Appeals, with leave, against the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse leave to enter and refuse asylum.
Held: ‘ The CIO routinely commits serious human rights abuses, which include torture. This is one of the reasons why the Respondent is not returning anyone to Zimbabwe at the present time. Given the CIO interest in the Applicant and their suspicion that he might be involved with the enemies of the regime, we conclude there is a real risk, even after some 3 years, that he will suffer ill-treatment in interrogation amounting to persecution, on account of his perceived political opinion, as well as ill-treatment in breach of Article 3. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed.’

Judges:

Mr S L Batiste (Chairman)

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 03342

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.221897

AS (Sufficiency of Protection) Lithuania CG: IAT 19 Jul 2002

IAT The Secretary of State appealed against a decision of an Adjudicator dismissing an asylum claim by the Respondent, a citizen of Lithuania, but allowed her claim under the European Convention on Human Rights, finding that there was a real risk that to send her back to Lithuania would expose her to inhuman treatment which breached Article 3. He also decided that there was a real risk that she would suffer death and so there would be a breach of Article 2.

Judges:

Collins J, P

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 02843

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221856

DP (Risk, Lissouba Region) Republic of Congo Brazzaville CG: IAT 17 Jul 2002

‘The Appellant, Diane Pither, a citizen of the Republic of Congo, appeals with leave against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr D J Dulwich, who dismissed her appeal against the Respondent’s decision made on 20 March 2001 giving directions for her removal following the refusal of her claim for asylum.’

Judges:

Latter Chairman

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 02773

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221858

AR (Article 8, Mahmood, Private Life) Kosovo CG: IAT 24 Mar 2003

Appeal by a citizen of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who is from Kosovo and is of Albanian ethnicity, against the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing, following a remitted hearing, his appeal on asylum and human rights grounds against the decision by the respondent on 5 January 2001 to refuse to grant leave to enter the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Professor D B Casson (Chairman)

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 07378

Links:

Bailii

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221806

LH RQ (Risk, Albanians, Presevo Valley) Serbia and Montenegro CG: IAT 31 Jan 2003

Appeals from decisions of adjudicators dismissing asylum and human rights appeals by Albanian citizens from removal directions as illegal entrants. Leave was given on the basis that there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal which needed to be resolved.

Citations:

[2002] UKIAT 06359

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221776

Tanveer Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Pakistan): IAT 19 Feb 2002

The following principles are applicable when considering documents submitted in resisting directions for removal: ‘1. In asylum and human rights cases it is for an individual claimant to show that a document on which he seeks to rely can be relied on.
2. The decision maker should consider whether a document is one on which reliance should properly be placed after looking at all the evidence in the round.
3. Only very rarely will there be the need to make an allegation of forgery, or evidence strong enough to support it. The allegation should not be made without such evidence. Failure to establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities to the higher civil standard does not show that a document is reliable. The decision maker still needs to apply principles 1 and 2.’

Judges:

Collins J P, Ockleton DP, Moulden VP

Citations:

[2002] Imm AR 318, [2002] INLR 345, [2002] UKIAT 00439

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Confirmed – MJ (Singh v Belgium : Tanveer Ahmed Unaffected) Afghanistan UTIAC 1-May-2013
UTIAC The conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights in Singh v Belgium (Application No. 33210/2011) neither justify nor require any departure from the guidance set out in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] Imm AR 318 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221800

Regina on the Application of M v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: CA 16 Dec 2004

The appellants sought judicial review of the refusal of asylum. They sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, but that had been refused. They then sought a statutory review by a judge of the Administrative division. That review also was refused. They complained that they had not been given an opportunity to make an oral application at this last hearing.
Held: The Statutory review procedure was designed as a back-stop for any refusal to hear an appeal by the IAT. The restriction on oral hearings only operated at one level, and oral hearings were available at others. The regime provided adequate and proportionate protection. The appeals failed: ‘It seems to us that the key finding made by Collins J was that, in the light of the two-tier tribunal system, statutory review was a satisfactory judicial process for the question that it was designed to address. This is the critical issue. Does the procedure as a whole carry a satisfactory assurance that the rights of those entitled to asylum will be upheld?’
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘The consideration of proportionality involves more than comparing the remedy with what is at stake in the litigation. When Parliament enacts a remedy with the clear intention that this should be pursued in place of judicial review, it is appropriate to have regard to the considerations giving rise to that intention. The satisfactory operation of the separation of powers requires that Parliament should leave the judges free to perform their role of maintaining the rule of law but also that, in performing that role, the judges should, so far as consistent with the rule of law, have regard to legislative policy.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Sedley Baker, Scott Baker LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1731, Times 23-Dec-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina (on the Application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court Admn 13-Dec-2001
The applicant sought to appeal against a refusal of leave to appeal against an arbitration. There had been some delay for the applicant’s health.
Held: Leave to appeal having been refused there was no further right of appeal under the 1999 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Cited – AM (Cameroon), Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal CA 21-Feb-2007
The asylum applicant sought judicial review of interlocutory decisions of an immigration judge. The defendant said that there was a statutory procedure and that therefore that had to be followed rather than judicial review.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220717

Johnstone v Pedlar: HL 24 Jun 1921

The now respondent, a naturalised USA citizen, had sued the appllant, the chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan police complaining of an unlawful detention, and continued retention of money taken on his arrest for militarily drilling disaffected persons. He had been prosecuted for allegation under the defence of the realm act, but the judge had directed a not guilty verdict.
Held: Lord Atkinson said: ‘Aliens, whether friendly or enemy, can be lawfully prevented from entering this country and can be expelled from it.’

Judges:

Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1921] 2 AC 262, [1921] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220651

Mohammad, Manoharan, Sakhee, Yogarajah v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 24 Jan 2002

The applicants were asylum seekers. They were made subject to certificates issued by the Secretary of State which would require refoulement, for them to be returned to the country into which they first made their escape for their application for asylum to ?e considered. They complained particularly that Germany was not a safe country to be returned to. The certificate was issued but could not be acted upon until the asylum application had been considered. What limitations might there be on the Secretary when he considered issuing a certificate.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish any risk that if returned to Germany they might face being treated otherwise than in accordance with Article 3. An asylum seeker had a defeasible right of appeal if the Secretary’s discretion was exercised unlawfully. Appeals failed.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Turner

Citations:

Unreported, 24 Jan 2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Parts I and IV 11 65 71 72

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Cited – Ayman Ibrahim CA 2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.167468

Shrestha and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 14 Dec 2018

‘if an applicant for leave to remain raises a human rights ground for the first time after the refusal of his application on other grounds and in response to a request by the Secretary of State under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’), does the Secretary of State have an obligation to treat and determine that response as an application for leave to remain on human rights grounds even absent any further form of application? The Applicants submit that he does. The Secretary of State denies any such obligation.’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2810

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 50(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636167

Gezer v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2004

Judges:

Mr Justice Elias Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1730

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gezer v Secretary of State for Home Department and others CA 2-Apr-2004
Application adjourned pending decision of House of Lords . .
Appeal from – Gezer, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 14-Apr-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220344

Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Sep 2004

The court considered whether a protective costs order should be granted in favour of the claimants in relation to a substantive appeal in a matter in which they had been protected by an undertaking by the Home Office not to seek an order for costs against them at first instance. In the event the court made a PCO by consent.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Costs

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220336

MH (Accession Nationals Not Now Removed) Slovakia: IAT 30 Nov 2004

It is Home Office Policy that citizens of EU countries who were in the United Kingdom at the date of their country’s accession to the EU will not be removed unless they pose a threat to public health, public policy or public security. Appeals by such individuals should therefore be allowed (on EU grounds only) unless they are shown to pose such threat.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219997

LB (Article 3, Monrovia, Security) Liberia CG: IAT 28 Apr 2004

The claimant appealed against a determination of an Adjudicator, who dismissed his appeal on asylum and human rights grounds against the Respondent’s decision to give directions for his removal to Liberia. The Respondent had disputed the Appellant’s nationality, but the Adjudicator accepted that the Appellant was a Liberian national. Given the terms of the grounds of application and the terms in which permission to appeal was granted, the issues were whether the Appellant’s removal to Monrovia would be in breach of his rights under Articles 2 or 3, bearing in mind the general security situation in Monrovia and the humanitarian conditions in Monrovia.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219591

The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 12 Nov 2004

The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice to concentrate the officials’ minds on the proper ingredients of fair procedure. It allowed two principle remedies for any unfairness. There would be access even if retrospective, to the justice system, and, as in this case relief was given after appropriate judicial intervention. The choice of a fair system was in the first instance the responsibility of the executive, which could properly allow for political and similar imperatives, but it could not choose a method of achieving those aims which sacrificed fairness. Courts would look to the individual interests at issue, the benefits to be derived from added procedural safeguards, and the costs to the administration of compliance. The nature of asylum standards required the highest standards of fairness. Although there remained failings which must be addressed: ‘we do not consider that the system itself is inherently unfair and therefore unlawful. On the contrary, so long as it operates flexibly – as the Home Office accepts it should – the system can operate without an unacceptable risk of unfairness.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Sedley And Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1481, Times 24-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 2219

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Refugee Legal Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 31-Mar-2004
The court declined to hold that the fast-track system of asylum adjudication at Harmondsworth Removal Centre was inherently unfair or therefore unlawful. . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Thirukumar CA 1989
The court emphasised the fundamental importance of asylum decisions: ‘asylum decisions are of such moment that only the highest standards of fairness will suffice.’ . .
Cited – Regina (ZL and VL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Chancellor’s Department CA 24-Jan-2003
The applicants’ claims for asylum had been rejected as bound to fail, and under the new Act, they were to be removed from the UK. If they wanted to appeal, they they would have to do so from outside the jurisdiction. The section had been brought . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed CA 13-Nov-1996
The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (Refugee Legal Centre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 31-Mar-2004
The court declined to hold that the fast-track system of asylum adjudication at Harmondsworth Removal Centre was inherently unfair or therefore unlawful. . .
Applied – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2010
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or . .
Cited – Ali Hussein v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 1-Feb-2013
The claimant sought to challenge the legality of techniques of interrogation intended to be used by forces members detaining person captured in Afghanistan. He had himself been mistreated by such officers in Iraq. The defendant denied he had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219453