Category: Immigration

Commission v Luxembourg C-445/03: ECJ 21 Oct 2004

ECJ Failure of a State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Requirements imposed by the host Member State on undertakings which deploy within its territory salaried workers who are nationals of non-member countries.

Citations:

[2004] EUECJ C-445/03, [2004] ECR I-10191, ECLI:EU:C:2004:655, [2005] 1 CMLR 22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Low and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2009
In each case the applicant, a company based in Ireland had employed in its restaurants, Chinese nationals who were unlawfully present here. The company sought judicial review of the arrest of its employees.
Held: ‘None of the claimants had any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219031

Darji v Secretary State for the Home Department; Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Oct 2004

The two applicants were Nepalese from Bhutan who sought asylum on the grounds of fear of persecution and of human rights abuses if returned to Nepal.

Judges:

Mr Justice Gage, Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218863

Sivakumuran, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 1987

An asylum seeker has to do no more than prove that he has a well-founded fear that there is a ‘real and substantial risk’ or a ‘reasonable degree of likelihood’ of persecution for a Convention reason. A fear may be well-founded for the purpose of the Convention and Protocol even though persecution is unlikely to occur. The objective facts to be considered are not confined to those which induced the applicant’s fear.
Lord Goff of Chieveley spoke of ‘a real and substantial risk of persecution’.

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

[1988] AC 958, [1988] 1 All ER 193, [1987] UKHL 1, [1988] 2 WLR 92, [1988] Imm AR 147

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218982

Gashi v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 5 Nov 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1747

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Swash v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 26-Jul-2006
The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218517

Uruakpa, Regina (on the Application Of) v British Council: CA 18 Nov 2002

Renewed application by Dr Uruakpa in judicial review proceedings from a decision as to whether the British Council were entitled to withdraw their sponsorship of him under their scheme for sponsoring those wishing to undertake medical training in the United Kingdom.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1749

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health Professions, Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217872

Bubaker v Lord Chancellor and others: CA 13 Jun 2002

Renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court, refusing the applicant permission to seek judicial review to challenge the validity of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2001 made by the Lord Chancellor.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1107

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217272

Regina (Gashi) v Chief Immigration Adjudicator: QBD 17 Aug 2001

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the chief adjudicator refusing an appeal from a decision of the special adjudicator rejecting his asylum claim. His evidence had been rejected as inconsistent, but he claimed that this was due to an incompetent interpreter. The chief adjudicator had held that the competence of the interpreter was a matter of substance not a procedural error. The court granted the review. The competence of the interpreter was a matter of procedure, and was admissible under rule 16. Remitted to the chief adjudicator for reconsideration.

Judges:

Judge Wilkie

Citations:

Gazette 11-Oct-2001, Times 12-Nov-2001, Gazette 15-Nov-2001

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 (2000 No 2333) 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Swash v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 26-Jul-2006
The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.166537

Singh v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: HL 26 Jun 1986

HL Immigration — Appeal — Deportation — Matters to be considered on appeal against deportation — Relevant factors and circumstances — Compassionate circumstances — Appellant illegally overstaying leave to enter — Appellant becoming valued member of Sikh community in United Kingdom — Whether effect of deportation on third party interests a relevant factor or circumstance — Whether effect of appellant’s deportation on Sikh community relevant — Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC Paper (1982–83) no 66), paras 154, 156, 158.

Citations:

[1986] UKHL 11, [1986] 1 WLR 910, [1986] Imm AR 352

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.559853

Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another: CA 13 Dec 2002

Application for permission to appeal against a decision to refuse him permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing him permission to appeal against a decision of a special adjudicator dismissing Mr Omar Mohammed’s appeal against a decision made on behalf of the Secretary of State to refuse him asylum. He had arrived in this country on a forged passport on 1st November 2001 from Nigeria.

Judges:

Brooke LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1911

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217899

Uruakpa, Regina (on the Application Of) v British Council: CA 8 Oct 2002

Application for permission to appeal a decision refusing the claimant and his wife, permission to seek judicial review of the British Council’s decision not to renew their sponsorship of the claimant.

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1742

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health Professions

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217763

Abbasi and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others: CA 10 Sep 2002

The appellant was a British citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay by US authorities. He was captured by American forces in Afghanistan. He claimed that his detention was a violation of international law and that, under the United Kingdom Domestic Law, the defendants owed him a duty by diplomatic means to take reasonable steps to bring to an end his detention, or to bring to an end the features of that detention which allegedly violate international law.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Waller LJ, Carnwath J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1316

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Regina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217549

Wu v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 5 Jul 2002

W had been brought to the UK illegally by Chinese gangs. He had argued that his considerable debts to these gangs meant that if returned he or his family would be subject to severe physical threat including death. The SS now appealed from his grant of asylum.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1189

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217512

Sajjad, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Apr 2019

Appeal from refusal of permission to apply for judicial review asking as to the requirements to be met by a person who applies pursuant to the Points Based System for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant and who claims points on the basis of his investment in a UK business.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 720

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636084

Binbuga (Turkey) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 Apr 2019

Appeals against the decision of the Upper Tribunal which remade the decision of the First Tier Tribunal and dismissed TB’s appeal from the decision of the Respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department which refused his human rights claim and maintained the decision to deport him.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 551

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.635639

Chanda v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Oct 2018

issue about paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules (concerned with false representations or false documents or information) and the separate considerations that arise out of a false document, on the one hand, and a finding of deception on the part of the applicant, on the other.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2424

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.628679

Idrissi v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 13 Feb 2001

Appeal with permission against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a determination made by the special adjudicator who had in turn dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 235

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217994

Al-Sabah (Sheikh Mohammed Nasser) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: CA 1992

The applicant, a Kuwaiti citizen of previous good character had been ordered to be deported after serving a sentence for drugs and dishonesty. He sought review of the IAT’s refusal of his appeal, arguing that Rule 162 of the 1983 rules required the Home Secretary to apply the same rules to both EC and non-EC nationals, and that contrary to EC law, a deportation could not be based solely on a conviction.
Held: The appeal failed. The rules expressly allowed for different treatment of non-EC citizens. The decision could be made in the light of the severity of the offence itself. The cases involving deportation by criminal courts had no direct application. Taylor LJ said: ‘Those cases [sc. Nazari and later authorities of the CACD] were all concerned with the correct approach by a trial judge to recommending deportation. They did not purport to define or limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s discretion under s.(3)(5)(b) [now s.3(5)(a)] of the Act… In Hukam Saib, Stocker LJ said at page 378: ‘ . . it is to be noted that the case [of Nazari] was an appeal to the Criminal Division of this court, and related to guidelines which the court was laying down (so far as it was possible to lay down general guidelines) for the guidance of courts in making recommendations for deportation. It did not, and did not purport to lay down any guidelines for the exercise of his discretion by the Secretary of State’.’

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1992] IAR 223, [1992] Imm AR 223

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b) 19, Immigration Rules 1983 34 69 162

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – B v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 18-May-2000
The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Immigration, European

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.191191

Jeyapragash, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: CA 21 Sep 2004

The parties settled an immigration appeal in the last days before the date set for the hearing.
Held: Parties should bear in mind the new Court of Appeal rules requiring documents to be lodged early, and for settlements to be agreed if possible early so that listing slots should not be lost. Representatives can expect to be called to appear in person before the court to explain themselves and to be penalised in costs for breaches of the rules.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1260, Times 12-Oct-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216384

JD (Homosexual, MD Supporter, Internal Relocation ) Zimbabwe: IAT 17 Sep 2004

‘The Appellant is a citizen of Zimbabwe who appeals against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr D. M. Brunnen, promulgated on 27 October 2003, dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse both her asylum and human rights claims.’

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00259

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216090

Mazrae v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2004

The asylum applicant renewed his application for leave to challenge the finding that there was no sufficiently substantial risk to his life if he was returned to Iran, and to introduce new evidence. His account had been rejected as unreliable, but he then obtained medical evidence which tended to support his claims as to his treatment. Medical evidence
Held: An applicant wishing to introduce new evidence should make an application to the tribunal whose decision he wished to challenge, to admit the evidence as soon as possible. The Appeal Tribunal should take the receipt of the notice of appeal as an indication of the need to look at its own decision. However ‘It is really beyond argument that if someone in the position of this asylum seeker is going to make use of the procedures which are available to him his case must be presented in full – and, so far as possible, at the very first opportunity.’ In this case it was not new evidence which could not have been obtained for the firsthearing: ‘although valid criticisms can be made of the way in which the adjudicator in the present case approached her task, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was entitled to deal with the grounds of appeal as it did and because it has done so there is no reason to grant permission to appeal to this court.’

Judges:

Kennedy, Sedley, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1235, Times 19-Oct-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Immigration

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215985

BA and others (Bedoon, Statelessness, Risk of Persecution) Kuwait: IAT 15 Sep 2004

The appellants, each claiming to be a stateless Bedoon (sometimes ‘Bidoon’ or ‘Bidun’) from Kuwait, appealed against dismissals at adjudicator level of their asylum appeals. The court gave country guidance for Bedoon.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213688

ZT v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Nov 2005

The applicant entered the UK as a visitor, but resisted her return home saying that she had HIV, and would not receive proper treatment for her condition if returned to Zimbabwe.
Held: the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment did not require a contracting state to guarantee medical treatment to aliens.

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1421, Times 23-Dec-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – N v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 5-May-2005
The applicant had sought asylum here, but her application was rejected. She was suffering advanced HIV/AIDS. With continued proper treatment she would survive several years. If returned to Uganda she would not receive that treatment and would not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.235439