Category: Immigration

Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 31 Jul 2000

Whether a stateless person who is unable to return to the country of his former habitual residence is, by reason of those facts alone, a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as modified by the 1967 New York Protocol. The Tribunal found, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department contends, that it is also necessary to establish a present well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’.

Judges:

Pill, Clarke LJJ, Bennett J

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 500, [2000] 3 WLR 1519, [2000] Imm AR 610, [2001] QB 601, [2000] INLR 646

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.231543

Hamid and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1219

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 103C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nadarajah v Regina CACD 16-Nov-2007
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made following his conviction for conspiracy to supply controlled drugs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.231480

GH v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 12 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1182, [2006] INLR 36

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.231189

Azam and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: HL 11 Jun 1973

Immigration – Detention – Illegal entrant – Illegal entrant not given leave to enter or remain in United Kingdom – Detention pending directions for removal – Persons entering United Kingdom and present there in breach of immigration laws – Commonwealth immigrant – Immigrant entering United Kingdom clandestinely in breach of laws relating to Commonwealth immigrants previously in force – Immigrant no longer liable to prosecution under previous laws – Whether immigrant ‘settled’ in United Kingdom and deemed to have indefinite leave to remain – Whether immigrant ‘illegal entrant’ liable to detention and removal – Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, ss 4, 4A (as added by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, s 3) – Immigration Act 1971, ss 1 (2), 4 (2), 33 (1), (2), 34 (1) (a), Sch 2, paras 9, 16 (2).

Citations:

[1973] UKHL 7, [1974] AC 18, 137 JP 626,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.559827

Waddington v Miah: HL 1 May 1974

HL Immigration – Statute controlling immigration – Retrospective operation – Penal provisions – Illegal entry – Possession of false passport – Whether statute creating offences in respect of acts performed before it came into force – Immigration Act 1971, ss 24(1)(a), 26(1)(d).

Citations:

[1974] UKHL 6, 138 JP 497, 59 Cr App Rep 149, [1974] 2 All ER 377, [1974] 1 WLR 683

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.559829

Patel, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 24 Jun 2015

Appeal against an order giving judgment for the respondent against the appellant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the sum of pounds 125,000 by way of damages (including both aggravated and exemplary damages) for false imprisonment. Findings of false evidence by immigration officers.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘ the Judge’s reasoning is profoundly unsatisfactory and unfair and does not come close to justifying the factual findings that he made.’

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 645

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.549438

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

The Claimants are both victims of modern slavery/people trafficking who challenge aspects of the Defendant’s policy towards people such as themselves who have been accepted as victims (as they have) by the Defendant following a Conclusive Grounds determination under the National Referral Mechanism. One of the policies challenged by the Claimants as unlawful is the Defendant’s policy of ending support including additional financial payments, accommodation and support worker assistance 45 days after the CG determination has been given. In response, the Defendant relies on the fact that victims can ask for an extension of support pursuant to an unpublished policy. There are amended grounds of challenge to include a challenge to the legality of that extension policy.

Judges:

Justice Julian Knowles

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1003 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.636096

Zermani, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 30 Apr 2015

The Claimant sought an order quashing the decision of the Respondent refusing his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom based on his Article 8 ECHR private life claim, on the ground, of the failure to consider whether or not to grant leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules.

Judges:

Worster HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1226 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.546220

A, B and C: ECJ 17 Jul 2014

ECJ (Advocate General’s Opinion) Common European Asylum System – Directive 2004/83/EC – Refugee status – Directive 2005/85/EC – Assessment of applications for international protection – Assessment of facts and circumstances – Credibility of an applicant’s averred sexual orientation

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

C-148/13, [2014] EUECJ C-148/13 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2111, [2014] EUECJ C-148/13

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/83/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.535356

Tarakhel v Switzerland: ECHR 4 Nov 2014

(Grand Chamber) The applicants alleged mainly that if they were returned to Italy they would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the risk of being left without accommodation or being accommodated in inhuman and degrading conditions. The risk stemmed, in their submission, from the absence of individual guarantees as to how they would be taken charge of, in view of the systemic deficiencies in the reception arrangements for asylum seekers in Italy.

Judges:

Dean Spielmann, P

Citations:

29217/12 – Grand Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1185, [2014] ECHR 1267, [2014] ECHR 1435

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.538290

Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Jul 2014

The court was asked whether the Claimant’s proposed deportation to Jamaica, following his conviction and imprisonment for a very serious criminal offence, involves a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘the Human Rights Act’). The discrimination is said to arise because the Claimant did not become a British citizen when he was born in Jamaica as the illegitimate child of a British citizen, whereas he would have been a British citizen if he had been a legitimate child, and a British citizen cannot be deported.
Held: ‘ (1) that there has been a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 8 of the ECHR, because the Claimant is currently being treated differently on the ground that he was illegitimate, and that such treatment is not justifiable; (2) there is no sustainable separate ground of complaint on the basis of immigration status; (3) it is not possible to interpret the provisions of section 162(5) of the 2002 Act to permit the Defendant to establish a scheme permitting persons to opt into section 50(9) of the 1981 Act as amended; (4) the parties should liaise to attempt to agree remedies to give effect to this judgment, failing which a short further hearing will be arranged; (5) the ‘clearly unfounded’ certification of the Claimant’s human rights claims should be quashed.’

Judges:

Dingemans J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2386 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Genovese v Malta ECHR 11-Oct-2011
The applicant was illegitimate, born to a British mother and a Maltese father. Paternity had been established scientifically and in judicial proceedings. The father refused to recognise his son on the birth certificate, and the applicant’s mother . .

Cited by:

At Admn – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Jan-2016
The appellant was Jamaican by birth, but had lived here with his British father since the age of four. Had his parents been married, he would have had British nationality. As he grew to an adult he was convicted on several serious matters. He now . .
At Admn – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘Is it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights to deny British citizenship to the child of a British father and a non-British mother simply because they were not married to one another at the time of his birth or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.535130

MM (Burma) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 May 2009

The claimant had applied for but been refused asylum. His appeal was outstanding, but he made a new asylum application. That had not been determined within a year.
Held: The EU directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers required the claimant to be allowed to work.

Judges:

Lord Justice Hughes, Mr Justice King and Judge Radford

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.374248

HE v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 26 Apr 2002

Renewal of an application for permission to appeal the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, which upheld the decision of an adjudicator, in turn confirming the decision of the Secretary of State, that the applicant was not entitled to asylum.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 611

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.217049

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar: HL 20 Mar 2003

The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention reason.
Held: Cases involving claims for refugee status under the Convention are particularly fact-sensitive. The judge had been wrong to allow any legal presumptions as to the factual basis of assessment. The applicant had failed to bring his case within a convention reason.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Gazette 22-May-2003, Times 24-Mar-2003, [2003] UKHL 14, [2003] 1 WLR 840

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Sivakumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-Jul-2001
The applicant for asylum was a Tamil. He was persecuted. He claimed it was political. The possibility of drawing that inference was greater when legal mis-treatment was not expected to be followed by legal proceedings. Excessive or arbitrary . .
Cited – The Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-1978
The UK lodged a derogation with the Court as regards its human rights obligations in Northern Ireland because of the need to control terroist activity. The Government of Ireland intervened. From August 1971 until December 1975 the UK authorities . .
Cited – T v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-May-1996
The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated . .
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 – 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 – Suarez v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-May-2002
The applicant for asylum had been threatened with death after witnessing a multiple murder as an army soldier. He had been already shot at before escaping.
Held: So long as an applicant can establish that one of the motives of his persecutor . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Sivakumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-Jul-2001
The applicant for asylum was a Tamil. He was persecuted. He claimed it was political. The possibility of drawing that inference was greater when legal mis-treatment was not expected to be followed by legal proceedings. Excessive or arbitrary . .
Cited – 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

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.179982

MS (Malaysia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Apr 2019

The court was asked whether the adult primary carer of her EU citizen parent can acquire a derivative right to remain in the United Kingdom based on her parent’s dependency on her for her care.

Judges:

Underhill VP, Floyd, Holroyde LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 580

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 15A(4A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635646

Holownia v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 3 Apr 2019

Quantum of damages for admitted unlawful detention of the Claimant. The Claimant is one of a number of individuals who are part of a cohort of European Economic Area ‘rough sleeper’ cases. He was unlawfully detained pursuant to the Defendant’s policy of issuing removal papers to, and detaining, EEA nationals who were alleged to be homeless and therefore not exercising Treaty rights pursuant to the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 794 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration, Damages

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635269

Zafar, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 25 May 2016

Claim for damages after detention uunder the former ‘Detained Fast Track’ system used for persons whose claims for asylum or humanitarian protection were considered by the Defendant to be capable of swift and fair determination were detained and their claims evaluated.

Judges:

Andrews DBE J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1217 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.564806

MJ and others (Art.12 Reg.1612/68, Self Sufficiency): IAT 21 Apr 2008

IAT Although Article 12 of Regulation EEC 1612/68 was not repealed by Directive 2004/38/EC, any rights which the family members of an EEA national may have under it after the EEA national has ceased working but remained in the United Kingdom are not unconditional but subject to demonstrating self sufficiency and the possession of comprehensive sickness insurance in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Spencer SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKAIT 00034, [2008] UKAIT 34

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation EEC 1612/68 12, Directive 2004/38/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.267097

Riaz, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 28 Mar 2019

Hearing of the application by the Claimant, Muhammad Ertiza Riaz, for judicial review of the decisions made by the Defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
i) on 24 August 2018 to detain Mr Riaz under immigration powers for the purposes of removal, and
ii) on 28 August 2018 to curtail his family visit visa so that it expired with immediate effect.

Judges:

David Edwards QC

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 721 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635265

Salih, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 3 Oct 2018

The Claimant brought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision declining to issue the Claimant with a British passport. The essential issue in this case is whether or not the Claimant is a British Overseas citizen.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2539 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.625910

OP (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1 May 2008

The applicant had been granted leave to stay. He was convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be deported on release. The Home Secretary appealed an overturning of the AIT decision in his favour, and the applicant in turn now appealed saying there had been no error of law.
Held: Wall LJ said: ‘The point, I think, shortly stated, is this. N (Kenya) makes it clear that proper weight must be given to the Secretary of State’s policy on deportation, and in particular to the fact that she has taken the view, in the public interest that crimes of violence such as that committed by the appellant are sufficiently serious to warrant deportation. In such circumstances, her assessment had to be taken as a given, unless it is palpably wrong. It was, accordingly, at best a questionable operation for the first determination to evaluate the seriousness of the offence

Judges:

Wall LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 440

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – N (Kenya) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Aug-2004
The appellant a foreign national, had been convicted of very serious sex offences, and as his sentence came to an end was ordered to be deported. He appealed saying this infringed his right to a family life.
Held: The court had to balance the . .

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

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.267388

Gungor, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 7 Sep 2004

The claimant made a further claim for asylum after his first claim had failed and his appeal rejected. He claimed that as a Kurd, he would face arrest if returned to Turkey. His passport had had a false visa stamp attached.
Held: While the rules relating to admission of fresh evidence on appeal were less retstrictive in public law cases than under Ladd v Marshall, the documents sought to be relied upon here had the characteristics of forgeries, and the respondent’s decision which rejected them stood.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2117 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of . .
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 Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.214218

AK (Failure To Assess Witnesses’ Evidence) Turkey: IAT 23 Aug 2004

The appellant appealed against the adjudicator’s rejection of his claim for asylum saying his evidence was incredible.
Held: The adjudicator’s decision was unsustainable. His recording of the evidence had been inadequate: ‘he ought as a matter of good practice to summarise at least the material parts of the evidence which he has heard so as to enable an informed reader to ascertain the nature and content of that evidence, and also to enable him to be satisfied that the adjudicator has directed his mind properly to the material aspects of the evidence. In general, it is not sufficient for an adjudicator merely to record that a witness has relied on his or her witness statement, although there may be particular circumstances in which that would suffice, e.g. where the evidence in question relates to facts which are not in dispute between the parties, or which are irrelevant to the issues on which the outcome of the appeal will turn. ‘

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00230

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200579

EA (Article 8, Entry Clearance, Delay) Iraq: IAT 25 Aug 2004

The applicant had entered the UK seeking sylum from Iraq. The adjudicator had allowed her appeal on Human Rights grounds, and the Secretary of State appealed. The claimant had since married in the UK, and her removal wouuld break up her married life. The adjudicator had taken into account the lack of co-operation of the respondent.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
Cited – Starred M v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Croatia) IAT 12-Feb-2004
‘The starting point should be that if in the circumstances the removal could reasonably be regarded as proportionate, whether or not the Secretary of State has actually said so or applied his mind to the issue, it is lawful. The Tribunal and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200582

Kibiti v Home Secretary: CA 2000

The court took a strict approach to the issue of admission of evidence which might demnostrate that the decision under appeal was based upon an error of fact. The appellant was a citizen of the Congo who had been refused asylum and failed in his appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had concluded that there was a state of civil war in the Congo, a view which was challenged by the appellant by reference to a report written after the Tribunal hearing.
Held: The court rejected the appeal, but undertook a detailed review of the Tribunal’s conclusions on the material available to it. Peter Gibson LJ said the appellant had sought to rely on a report by a Dr Manley, which had not been before the Tribunal at the time of its hearing but was provided to it when permission was asked to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Peter Gibson LJ agreed with the approach that whih prevented the material being received by the Court, on the grounds that the Court could only consider ‘any question of law material to the determination’: ‘This Court . . is confined to looking to see whether the Tribunal erred in some manner in relation to the facts and material which were before the Tribunal. It is obvious that material not put to the Tribunal could not be used to identify an error of law on the part of the Tribunal.’ and ‘It is inappropriate for new material to be presented to this Court which could not in any way have affected the decision of the Tribunal below. It is of course open to an applicant to present such new material to the Secretary of State once the appellate process relating to the earlier decision has been exhausted; and I do not doubt that the Secretary of State would take into account material such as that from Dr Manley, as an expert in the relevant field.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

[2000] Imm AR 594

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.193421

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 Session, not to the Court of Appeal. The earlier order was a nullity.

Judges:

Ward LJ

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2002, Gazette 21-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1560, [2002] 1 WLR 3282

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Starred Gardi (Asylum, KAA, Internal Flight Alternative) Iraq IAT 16-Nov-2001
. .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Scotland

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.177488

DS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 15 Nov 2019

Challenge to the government’s policy requiring that a person whose claim to be a victim of human trafficking has been rejected, can only have the decision reconsidered if one of a class of bodies intercedes with government on the person’s behalf.

Judges:

Mr Justice Kerr

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3046 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.645813

Morita and Others v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 27 Mar 2019

Applications for permission to apply for judicial review in relation to two linked claims, that came before me at a ‘rolled-up’ hearing to consider permission and, if permission is granted, the substantive claim for judicial review. Each applicant has been detained under immigration legislation and held in an immigration removal centre in England, where he undertook paid activities for which he was paid pounds 1 per hour under the current regime applicable to such activities.
The purpose of each application is to challenge by way of judicial review the decision of the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the Secretary of State’) not to increase the rate paid for paid activities undertaken by detained persons in removal centres and not to modify the payment regime to provide more flexibility (‘the 2018 Decision’).

Judges:

Justice Murray

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 758 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.635261

Kadri, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham City Council and Another: CA 7 Nov 2012

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR,Sullivan, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2013] 1 WLR 1755, [2012] EWCA Civ 1432, [2013] 1 All ER 945, [2012] WLR(D) 316, [2013] HLR 4, (2012) 15 CCL Rep 741, [2013] 1 FCR 153

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Children, Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.465607

WM (Democratic Republic of Congo) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department; The Secretary of State for the Home Department v AR (Afghanistan): CA 9 Nov 2006

The court set out the conditions for reviewing a decision by the Home Secretary to reject a renewed application for asylum. He should ask whether an adjudicator applying anxious scrutiny would think the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of persecution, and in respect both of the evaluations and the appropriate inferences in law, had the Home Secretary himself applied a similar anxious scrutiny.

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

C4/2005/2825, Times 01-Dec-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.247300

GO (Colombia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 5 Oct 2006

The asylum claimant’s daughter had been granted asylum because of fear of persecution for her connection with her father who was a Colombian policemen in fear of drugs gangs. He appealed refusal of his own application.
Held: The principles of res judicata or issue estoppel had no proper place in appeals before immigration tribunals, and one tribunal was not bound by decisions of fact made by another. The tribunal had been correct to say that the tribunal was not limited to hearing new evidence which might demonstrate inconsistencies in te story.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Hooper

Citations:

Times 27-Oct-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.247619

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Deaprtment ex parte Swati: CA 1986

A notice refusing leave to a visitor to enter which simply gave as the reasons:- ‘I am not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking entry only for this limited period.’ was sufficient compliance with the duty to give reasons for the decision imposed by the relevant Regulations: ‘The answer [to the question why did the person concerned take that decision or action] provides the reasons which have to be stated. No doubt those reasons, if rational, will be based upon a process of reasoning applied to evidence and, to this extent, may be described as a conclusion from that evidence. But this does not prevent that conclusion being the reason for the decision or action which is appealable and it is for this reason that the registrations call. In the instant appeal, the immigration officer, by specifying that she was not satisfied that the applicant was genuinely seeking entry for the limited period of one week, but only told the applicant why she was refusing him leave to enter, but also told him, by implication, that he had satisfied her on all other matters upon which he had to satisfy in accordance with [the Rules].’ and ‘By definition, exceptional circumstances defy definition.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 477

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Brian Turner) v Highbury Magistrates Court QBD 11-Oct-2005
The claimant had faced an application for a closure order on his premises for their use for unlawful drugs. The matter was adjourned twice at his request. On the third occasion he sought to rely upon the need for a closure order to be confirmed with . .
Cited – Hicks, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Dec-2005
The claimant, an Australian, presently held by the US as a suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay sought to be registered as a British Citizen, saying he was entitled to registration as of right.
Held: The past behaviour of an applicant was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.231503

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

The adjudicator had found that the asylum applicant, if returned to Sri Lanka may suffer a repeat of earlier maltreatment, having been taken prisoner by a political faction, and only released upon payment of a bribe. The Home secretary appealed, and the finding was reversed. The applicant appealed again saying the IAT had reversed a finding of fact.
Held: It was not generally open to the IAT to reverse a finding of fact. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1161, Times 19-Oct-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200535