Category: Immigration

Regina on the Application of Borak v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 30 Jul 2004

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s certificate as to his asylum claim under s96(2).
Held: The applicant had made a claim under human rights law. That had been rejected. He now sought to renew his application as an asylum claim, but on substantially the same facts. The respondent was free to give his certificate, and to prevent the claimant arguing substantially the same points twice.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1861 (Admin), Times 15-Sep-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 96(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200304

Regina on the Application of Mondi Zeqaj v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: QBD 27 Jul 2004

Application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing leave to appeal against the decision of an Adjudicator refusing the claimant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to reject his claim for asylum.

Judges:

Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1919 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200309

SH (Immigration Rule 57(Ii)(B), Student) Pakistan: IAT 28 Jul 2004

The Entry Clearance Office at Islamabad appealed to the Tribunal, with permission, from the Determination allowing the appeal by the Respondent against the ECO’s decision to refuse to grant to the Respondent leave to enter to the United Kingdom as a student.

Judges:

Huskinson VP J

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00211

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200045

Nadarajah Senthuran v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Jul 2004

The claimant appealed refusal of his claim for asylum, saying that an order for his removal would breach his article 8 rights in separating him from his family.
Held: The Tribunal was wrong to think that Advic said that family ties could never give rise to an article 8 infringement on removal. The issue was one of fact in each case. The applicant had lived with one or other of his siblings since arrival, and there would be a fresh hearing.

Judges:

The President

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 950, Times 03-Aug-2004, [2005] 1 FLR 229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Salad IAT 2002
. .
Cited – Advia / Advic v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Sep-1995
(Commission) In the ordinary course of events the fact that there are siblings in the same jurisdiction as an applicant does not establish a family life per se. There must be some genuine connection between siblings for family life to obtain, . .

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: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199811

Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef v The Home Office: QBD 30 Jul 2004

The claimant alleged false imprisonment after his asylum application.
Held: The court will assess the legality of a continued detention on an objective basis; but review is not restricted to a review of the Secretary of State’s decision on Wednesbury grounds.

Judges:

Field, The Honourable Mr Justice Field

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1884 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199802

KK (Failed Asylum Seeker) CG Libya: IAT 27 May 2004

‘The Appellant appeals, with leave, against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr D R Garratt, allowing the Respondent’s appeal against the decision of the Appellant on 13 August 2003 to issue removal directions and refuse asylum ‘

Judges:

Mr S L Batiste (Vice-President), Mr J Perkins (Vice-President), Mr G H Getlevog

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00151

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198976

KK (GBTS Other Information Systems McDowall) Turkey CG: IAT 29 Jun 2004

IAT (a) The fact that paragraphs 5.48 to 5.57 of the CIPU report sets out extracts of a report from SWOR (Swiss Organisation for Refugees) does not mean that this information is reliable. Paragraph 1.2 of the CPU Report makes it clear that the CIPU report is a collation of extracts of reports. We do not have any information about SWOR other than that it is an NGO. We do not know what methodology SWOR has used to gather its information, or the reliability of the sources of its information.
(b) Whilst it may well be that various bodies (the police, the gendarmerie, the army, etc.) within the Turkish government have their own information systems or registers and it may even be that such information systems/registers may contain information about persons who have been detained but not formally arrested, we are of the view that the last two sentences of paragraph 5.57 of the CIPU Report dated April 2004 should be treated with great caution. If taken literally, these two sentences would mean that every single individual who has ever been detained in the past (for however short a period of time and for whatever reason) would be listed on an information system. Information systems which include all such persons would be rendered of little use, given (from what we know about Turkey) that the numbers of such individuals would be very large indeed – unless, of course, the body which operates the information system/register makes entries of an adverse nature against the names of those individuals who are of continuing adverse interest to distinguish them from the generality. Accordingly, even if other information systems / registers exist, the guidance set out in the ACDOG case would have to be used in order to determine whether it would be reasonably likely that an individual would be subjected to treatment amounting to persecution or in breach of Article 3 on account of any information about the individual on any such systems or registers if the individual were to come into contact with the body which operates the systems or register. In other words, the ACDOG guidance would determine whether an individual is at real risk of such ill-treatment in his home area or the area where his detentions took place.
(c) Even if (applying the guidance in ACDOG) it would be reasonably likely that an individual would be at real risk of persecution or treatment in breach of Article 3 in his home area or the area in which his detentions took place, he would only be at real risk of such treatment on arrival at Istanbul airport if it is shown:
(i) that the other information system/register on which the individual is adversely recorded is available to the immigration or security officials at Istanbul airport; and
(ii) that there is some way of linking the other information system/register with the GBTS.
(d) SWOR does not say that other information systems/registers are available to the security officials at Istanbul airport. It suggests the existence of multiple information systems/registers in Turkey but makes no mention of any initiative by the Turkish authorities to put in place a single computer system to replace records held by police departments in Turkey (see (e), (f) and (g) below).
(e) The Zaman On-Line article dated 1st February 2004 (page 245 of the Appellant’s Bundle B) refers to a single computer system which will replace all records kept by the police and gendarmerie. This article gives the name of the system as ‘Information Collection System’. This article states that, under the single on-line system, all records of police and gendarmerie in the provinces will be abolished and the new on-line system will be used. The document entitled ‘Project for Police Information Systems’ dated April 2002 on the final page of the Appellant’s Bundle B also makes reference to a police computer network but it gives a different name – the name given in this article is ‘Police Computer Network and Information System’. Both documents must be referring to one and the same computer system – since both articles refer to one system to cover the police departments. If this is the case, then the Zaman On-Line article makes it clear that only criminal records would be collected into the single system. The inference therefore is that mere detentions would not be collected into the single on-line system.
(f) It is also clear from the Zaman On-Line article that not all police departments are already covered by the single on-line computer system. This article specifically refers to the Ankara Police Department having already destroyed all of its records. Accordingly, anyone who was previously detained by the Ankara police and who did not have any criminal record will not be named on the single on-line system, even if that system is available to security officials at Istanbul airport. The fact that records of the Ankara Police Department have been destroyed means that anyone with a history of detentions in Ankara would not now experience problems in Ankara, unless they can show that the individual officers would remember him and would continue to have an adverse interest in him.
(g) Furthermore, the Zaman On-line article states that the previous record keeping system sometimes led to violations in human rights and freedoms. Bearing this in mind, we regard the initiative to eventually abolish all records held by the police and gendarmerie and to collate criminal records into one on-line system as a positive development. Furthermore, if only those with criminal records will be named on the single system (as this Zaman On-line article states) and records in local police stations will be or have been destroyed, then the inference from this article is that fewer people will their human rights abused even in their former home areas.
(h) Mr. McDowall . . specifically states that ‘we are all guessing’. Accordingly, he is speculating in commenting on the evidence placed before the Tribunal in the No. 38 O case. On the same page, he states that ‘the central question here is whether the filter as applied by the GBTS as described [in his report] is in itself sufficient to serve Turkey’s security needs’. He opines that it is not. He proceeds to move from this opinion to the assumption that the Turkish authorities must therefore be using a better system which does serve its security needs. There is no basis for that assumption, which is based on speculation. The evidence we have is that, whether adequate or not, it is the GBTS which is used at Istanbul airport.
(i) At page 8 of his report (page 240 of the Appellant’s Bundle B), Mr. McDowall states that ‘Where the person detained is alleged to have been politically active or is otherwise perceived as an opponent of the State, it is practice for their detentions to be recorded on the GBT. The records can be accessed by the police’. Footnote 13 indicates that the source for this is Hayri Zafer Korkmaz, who is described as an ex-para legal of Baker and Co. Who is Mr. Korkmaz? What expertise does he have in this area? What does he base his information on? How reliable is his information? These questions are not dealt with in Mr. McDowall’s report. Furthermore, the contention that it is the practice for detentions to be recorded contradicts Mr. McDowall’s previous report of November 2002 (see paragraph 5.42 of the CIPU Report) in which he stated that a large proportion of detentions at police stations appear to go unrecorded in a formal sense.
(j) We do not accept that Mr. McDowall’s report of 19th March 2004 should be accepted by the Tribunal, even though his opinions are based, in part, on speculation and, in part, on information from parties about whom we are given very little information. It may be that the Tribunal has, to date, given too much credence to Mr. McDowall’s opinions. If he is the expert he is professed to be, then serious questions are raised as to why, as an expert, he had no prior knowledge of the information about the GBTS which was placed before the Tribunal in the No. 38 O case. The suggestion that it was only at that time that the evidence about the GBTS came forth does not address the issue we are raising here. Mr. McDowall has, for some time now, produced reports opining that the Turkish authorities hold records of detentions which would be available to the security officers at Istanbul airport because they would be on the GBTS. The argument he advances in the report of 19th March 2004 (that the practical application of the GBTS goes beyond official rules covering it) is not one which he has previously advanced – which is very surprising, if he is an ‘expert’ and given the length of time this particular debate has been going on for. We infer, from Mr. McDowall’s failure to mention previously such a distinction, that he was, quite simply, unaware of any such distinction until the No. 38 O case. It is also interesting to note that the information contained in the ‘Project for Police Information Systems’ document dated April 2002 and the information contained in the Zaman On-Line article dated 1st February 2004 (both of which pre-date the report of Mr. McDowall dated 19th March 2004) is not mentioned in his report. The time may now have come when the Tribunal may wish to reconsider what credence should be given to Mr. McDowall’s opinions.
(k) We do not agree that the No. 38 O case is not a country guidance case. It was clearly meant to provide guidance on the new evidence adduced to the Tribunal in that case about the GBTS system.’

Judges:

Gill VP

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00177

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199021

MA (Lebanon, Palestine, Fear of Fatah, Relocation) Palestine: IAT 19 May 2004

Appeal by the Secretary of State from the determination of Mrs Turquet sitting as an Adjudicator on the 9th September 2003. The claimant is a Palestinian who was living in a refugee camp in Lebanon until he left for the United Kingdom. He arrived in the United Kingdom illegally on or about 21 April 2003 . He claimed asylum on 28 April 2003. The claimant was found by the Adjudicator to be a credible witness and there is no challenge in the grounds of appeal to the Adjudicator’s findings of fact.

Judges:

His Honour Judge N Ainley (Vice President)

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00112

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198991

KK (Article 1F(C), Turkey): IAT 7 May 2004

IAT ‘This determination concerns the ambit of Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention, which excludes from the benefits of that Convention persons who have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’

Judges:

CMG Ockleton DP

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00101, [2005] INLR 124, [2004] Imm AR 284

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198986

AZ (Eligibility for Amnesty) Uganda: IAT 22 Jun 2004

‘The Secretary of State appeals the determination of an Adjudicator (Mr J F W Philips), who allowed the appeal of a citizen of Uganda (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the appellant) from the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse his application for asylum. The determination is reported because it concerns the question of the appellant’s eligibility for consideration under the amnesty.’

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00166, [2004] UKIAT 166

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199013

RH (Human Rights Appeal, Risk of Removal, Variation of Leave) Serbia and Montenegro: IAT 26 Apr 2004

‘The Secretary of State appeals by leave of the Tribunal against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr M.B. Hussain, allowing the respondent’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to vary leave to remain. ‘

Judges:

M W Rapinet (Chairman)

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00084

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198963

YL YL SN (Abandonment, Work-Permit Holders’ ILR) China: IAT 26 Apr 2004

The Appellants, citizens of China, appeal, with permission, against the determination of an Adjudicator, dismissing their appeals against the decision of the Respondent Secretary of State refusing them indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Mr C M G Ockelton (Deputy President), Mr J Barnes (a Vice President), Mr L V Waumsley (a Vice President)

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00083

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Rules 34

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198967

AH (Disputed Nationality, Risk on Return, Rohingya Muslim) Burma: IAT 27 Apr 2004

‘This is an appeal from the determination of Mr Mitchell sitting on 13 October 2003. The claimant, whose appeal this is, claims to be a citizen of Burma. He says that he is a Rohingya Muslim of Bengali ethnicity from the far west of Burma. The Adjudicator came to the conclusion that he was not Burmese at all and also came to various other conclusions about his claimed history. ‘

Judges:

Ainley VP TJ

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00085

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198954

Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council,: Admn 26 May 2004

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1199 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – 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:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198219

In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal): FD 24 Apr 2002

The mother had applied here for asylum. Her application had been refused but was subject to appeal. The father in India sought the return of the children on the basis that they had been removed from a Convention country which was their habitual residence, and against his will as their father. The mother applied for a stay pending the result of her appeal.
Held: The children should be returned. It was in their interests that this matter should be decided in their own country. There was no more than an superficial conflict between the 1999 Act, and the obligations under the Convention. The 1999 Act prevented removals under the immigration system, not orders giving effect to obligations under other conventions.

Judges:

Mr Justice Bennett

Citations:

Times 09-May-2002, Gazette 30-May-2002

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 15, Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal) CA 28-May-2002
The appellant was the mother of a child, who was claiming asylum. The father sought the return of the child to India, claiming he had been abducted by the mother. She said that whilst her claim for asylum was extant, the court must not allow her or . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal) CA 28-May-2002
The appellant was the mother of a child, who was claiming asylum. The father sought the return of the child to India, claiming he had been abducted by the mother. She said that whilst her claim for asylum was extant, the court must not allow her or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.170296

Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia: QBD 11 Oct 1995

An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995, Independent 11-Oct-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88303

Regina, ex parte O v The London Borough of Haringey, The Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 May 2004

The court considered the duties of local authorities to support infirm asylum seekers with children.
Held: The authority had an obligation to support the adult, but the responsibility for the children fell on the National Asylum Support Service.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix, LCJ, Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 535, Times 27-May-2004, [2004] 2 FNR 476

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .

Cited by:

Cited – City of Westminster v Boraliu CA 2-Nov-2007
The Council had taken leases of properties from a Housing Association to provide accomodation to the homeless, satisfying its statutory duties. The tenant B was said to be a non-secure tenant, but the tenancy agreement did not reflect the terms of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Children

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196626

Regina (on the Application of Gjovalin Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 11 May 2004

The claimant was stopped when boarding a flight to Canada, having previously stopped in France and Italy. He bore a false Swedish passport, and intended to claim asylum in Canada. He now claimed the benefit of the article 31 (per Adimi), to defend a prosecution under the 1981 Act for using a false instrument.
Held: The scope of section 31 was less than article 31 of the Convention, which did not apply directly, but only through the section. The court should attempt to construe the section to give effect to the Convention, but if it could not, it had to apply the section. That was the case here. No legitimate expectation could arise in favour of the claimant. A decision to prosecute is not ordinarily subject to judicial review save in wholly exceptional circumstances.
Thomas LJ said: ‘In view of the frequency of applications seeking to challenge decisions to prosecute, we wish to make it clear . . that, save in wholly exceptional circumstances, applications in respect of pending prosecutions that seek to challenge the decision to prosecute should not be made to this court. The proper course to follow, as should have been followed in this case, is to take the point in accordance with the procedures of the Criminal Courts. In the Crown Court that would ordinarily be by way of defence in the Crown Court and if necessary on appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The circumstances in which a challenge is made to the bringing of a prosecution should be very rare indeed as the speeches in Kebilene make clear.’

Judges:

Silber, Mr Justice Silber Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 798 (Admin), Times 21-May-2004, [2004] INLR 638

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31, Convention and Protocol Status of Refugees 31, Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
Cited – JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry HL 1989
An undisclosed principal will not be permitted to claim to be party to a contract if this is contrary to the terms of the contract itself. Thus the provision in the standard form B contract of the London Metal Exchange ‘this contract is made between . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Fraydon Navabi; Senait Tekie Embaye CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted of not having an immigration document when presenting themselves for interview. They had handed their passports to the ‘agents’ who had assisted their entry.
Held: The jury should have been directed as to the . .
Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196702

Secretary of State for the Home Department v I (Somalia): IAT 6 Apr 2004

The respondent claimed to fear persecution from majority clans in Somalia because of her membership of a minority clan, the Ashraf, Hassam sub-clan and Sharif Ali sub-sub-clan. The court was now asked whether events dring the hearing should have led to the hearing being stopped and reheard before a different tribunal.

Judges:

Moulden C

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00062

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2003 52

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196470

Regina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 23 Oct 2003

A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without ‘adequate’ accommodation. What was such accommodation?
Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was adequate to place them immediately in temporary accommodation which would be adequate in the short term, pending the finding of properly suitable accommodation for the longer term. A balancing exercise had to be made. The adequacy of the temporary accommodation was not to be tested as to its adequacy for non-disabled children, but rather for the disabilities of these particular children.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1473, Times 31-Oct-2003

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Ouji) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2002
The court was concerned to interpret s122(4) of the 1999 Act relating to ‘essential living needs’. Basic support and basic essential needs by reference to non-disabled asylum seekers would be provided by the Secretary of State under the 1999 Act, . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Appeal from – A, Regina (on the Application of) v National Asylum Support Service and Another CA 23-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, Housing

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.187086

N v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Oct 2003

The applicant entered the UK illegally. She was unwell and was given treatment. She resisted removal on the grounds that the treatment available to her would be of such a quality as to leave her life threatened.
Held: D -v- UK should be strictly confined. The applicant’s condition was not one created by the respondent, and did not result from any mistreatment. ‘where the complaint in essence is of want of resources in the applicant’s home country (in contrast to what has been available to him in the country from which he is to be removed) is only justified where the humanitarian appeal of the case is so powerful that it could not in reason be resisted by the authorities of a civilised State.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1369, Times 23-Oct-2003

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Strictly Confined – D v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
In the circumstances of the case, where the applicant was in the advanced stage of a terminal illness (AIDS), to implement a decision by the respondent to remove the appellant to St Kitts in the West Indies would be a violation of his rights under . .
Cited – Ahsan Ullah, Thi Lien Do v Special Adjudicator, Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Dec-2002
The appellants challenged refusal of asylum, claiming that their return to countries which did not respect their religion, would infringe their right to freedom of religious expression. It was accepted that the applicants did not have a sufficient . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Tyrer v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Apr-1978
Three strokes with a birch constituted degrading punishment for a 15-year-old boy, which violated article 3 having regard to the particular circumstances in which it was administered.
Preliminary objection rejected (disappearance of object of . .
Cited – BB v France ECHR 7-Sep-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (solution of the matter)
The applicant came from the Congo. He came to France, where he was a failed asylum seeker and a convicted drug . .
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 . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – Henao v Netherlands ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The applicant was a national of Colombia. While serving a prison sentence in Holland for a drugs offence he was diagnosed HIV-positive. He sought to resist expulsion to Columbia on Article 3 grounds.
Held: ‘ . . the Court considers that, . .

Cited by:

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

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.187005

Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another (Ahment Godan): CA 28 Oct 2003

The applicant was an asylum applicant. She sought to appeal a decision to stop support payments. She appealed a decision that she had no right to appeal.
Held: A decision which might give rise to an appeal only occurred if the applicant had an existing right to support which had been terminated.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Buxton LJ, Laws LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Nov-2003, (2003) 34 HLR 423

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 102(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another Admn 25-Oct-2002
The asylum seeker had sought support from the Secretary of State. That assistance had been granted subject to a condition that she live where directed. She sought to appeal.
Held: There was no right of appeal against the condition. The . .

Cited by:

Endorsed – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator and Another Admn 30-Nov-2006
The claimant had sought support which had been refused by the Home Secretary on the basis that he was no longer an asylum seeker. The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of his appeal by the Chief Asylum Support adjudicator. The Home . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.188680

Regina (Saad and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Dec 2001

The grant by the Secretary of State of exceptional leave to remain in the UK, did not remove the right of an asylum seeker to appeal a rejection of his claim for asylum. The applicant had the right to have his status, and the UK’s compliance with international obligation determined.
Held: The granting of special leave was not full compliance by the UK with its treaty obligations. A grant of refugee status would confer significant additional rights.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Schiemann and Lord Justice Clarke

Citations:

Times 07-Jan-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .
Approved – Laftaly v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1993
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.167348

Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1997

Citations:

[1997] 1 WLR 1107

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator and Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte Yardim Admn 17-Dec-1997
The applicant appealed a refusal of leave to appeal against a determination rejecting in turn his appeal against a decision rejecting his application for asylum. He had left Turkey after refusing National Service. Such a refusal on its own was not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.180527

Regina v London Borough of Southwark ex parte Bediako and City of Westminster ex parte Zafru: Admn 19 Feb 1997

‘These two applications for judicial review were heard together and raise the identical issue of law, namely the effect of section 9(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 upon an application for housing made to a local authority before the date when the section came into force (19 August 1996).’

Judges:

Stephen Richard HHJ

Citations:

[1998] 30 HLR 22, [1997] EWHC Admin 166

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 9(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.137111

Walker, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 29 Jun 2010

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to refuse leave to remain without granting a right of appeal, and of the Immigration Tribunal to accept that any appealable decision had been made.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2473 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.425202

M v London Borough of Islington and Another: CA 2 Apr 2004

The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had power to provide her with assistance. Though the authority had no duty to the parent whilst here unlawfully, that said nothing about the duty to the child. The statutory Guidance permits the provision of accommodation for a period until travel arrangements are made by the Home Office. Thart assistance need not be limited to ten days.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Buxton, And Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 235, Times 22-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Witholding and Withdrawal of Support (travel Assistance and Temporary Accomodation) regulations 2002 (2002 No 3078) 3(3), Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Children Act 1989 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (M) v Islington London Borough Council and Another QBD 5-Jun-2003
The applicant had come to England from Guyana. She married here and had a child, but after her divorce, she was to be removed back to her home country. She applied for emergency housing, but was offered only short term housing and the cost of a . .
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC ex part D 1999
It was not outside a local authority’s powers to supply an air ticket to assist a failed asylum seeker to return home with her children. . .
Cited – Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha CA 7-Sep-2000
The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority.
Held: The . .
Cited – Poku v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
. .
Cited – Poku v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
. .
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 – Laker Airways v Department of Trade CA 15-Dec-1976
Policy guidance issued by the respondent was unlawful because it was contrary to the statutory objectives laid down for the Civil Aviation Authority by section 3 of the 1971 Act. The court discussed the status of guidance issued by the respondent: . .
Cited – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Cited – De Falco v Crawley Borough Council CA 1980
The court discussed the effect of statutory guidance in the form of a code: ‘the council of course had to have regard to the code: see section 12 of the statute; but, having done so, they could depart from it if they thought fit’. . .
Cited – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (M) v Islington London Borough Council and Another QBD 5-Jun-2003
The applicant had come to England from Guyana. She married here and had a child, but after her divorce, she was to be removed back to her home country. She applied for emergency housing, but was offered only short term housing and the cost of a . .
Cited – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195902

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v M: CA 18 Mar 2004

The applicant had been detained under the appellant’s certificate that he was a suspected terrorist.
Held: The fact that there were suspicions surrounding the detainee did not mean that those suspicions were necessarily reasonable suspicions as required by the Act. Though a detainee could leave this country as an alternative to detention, his safe removal might not be practical. The order required demonstration of links to al-Qaeda. A special advocate could look to the detainee’s interests, but was ‘undoubtedly under a grave disadvantage’, and a heavy responsibility remained upon the court and the appellant to ensure that the powers were not used in an unlawful way. ‘To be detained without being charged or tried or even knowing the evidence against you is a grave intrusion on an individual’s rights’. The commission did not second guess the Home Secretary, but reached its independent view of the basis of the suspicion. The commission had looked at all the evidence presented by the Home Secretary, and concluded that it did not justify a reasonable suspicion.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Potter, Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales

Citations:

[2004] 2 All ER 863, [2004] EWCA Civ 324, Times 24-Mar-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 (2001 No 3644)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .

Cited by:

Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194570

BD (Application of SK and DK) Croatia CG: IAT 26 Feb 2004

Judges:

Ouseley J P

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Jul-2004
The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. The claimant appealed that finding.
Held: The jurisdiction of the IAT was now restricted to issues of law. The respondents submissions to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194171

Z v Secretary of State for the Home Department (China): IAT 6 Feb 2004

The SS appealed against the decision of an Adjudicator allowing the respondent’s appeal on asylum grounds and on human rights grounds under both Article 3 and Article 8, against the decision of the appellant to direct her removal.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193559

Regina (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 4 Feb 2004

The claimant had sought asylum on the day after arrival, and had therefore been refused any assistance beyond the provision of a list of charities who might assist. His lawyers were unable to secure either shelter or maintenance, and he had been left to sleep rough outside a police station.
Held: The treatment amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment under the Convention. The threshold was high. The court had to consider just what ‘treatment’ had been given. Here the claimant was left without shelter or money, and he already had health problems, and might be expected to suffer psychiatric problems if the treatment continued. The only alternative left to him was crime or begging.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2004, [2004] EWHC 219 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55

Citing:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Mar-2003
The Home Secretary appealed a ruling that his implementation of section 55 was unlawful, having been said to be incompatible with human rights law.
Held: The way in which the section had been operated, by denying consideration and all benefits . .
Cited – Regina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar CA 23-Sep-2003
The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading?
Held: No simple . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Limbuela, Tesema, Adam CA 21-May-2004
The appellant brought in policies which denied to asylum claimants who had failed to declare their status immediately upon entry, any shelter or support or the right to work. They were to be left to starve on the streets if they so wished. He . .
At first instance – 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.

Human Rights, Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193420

Davoodipanah v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 29 Jan 2004

Before the adjudicator, the respondent had conceded that the asylum applicant had good reason to fear persecution if returned to her home country. He sought to withdraw that concession at the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Held: It was not for the Court of Appeal to hear an argument about the withdrawal of the concession. The whole content of the adjudicator’s decision was on the basis of the concession. The applicant would be prejudiced if the concession was withdrawn without her having opportunity to argue it. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal should first hear argument on the point and decide, not the Court of Appeal.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘It is clear from the authorities that where a concession has been made before an adjudicator by either party the Tribunal can allow the concession to be withdrawn if it considers that there is good reason in all the circumstances to take that course . . Obviously if there will be prejudice to one of the parties if the withdrawal is allowed that will be relevant and matters such as the nature of the concession and the timing may also be relevant, but it is not essential to demonstrate prejudice before an application to withdraw a concession can be refused. What the Tribunal must do is to try to obtain a fair and just result. In the absence of prejudice, if a presenting officer has made a concession which appears in retrospect to be a concession which he should not have made, then justice will require that the Secretary of State be allowed to withdraw that concession before the Tribunal. But, as I have said, everything depends on the circumstances, and each case must be considered on its own merits.’

Judges:

Kennedy, Clarke, Jacob LJJ

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 106, Gazette 11-Mar-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Ivanauskiene) v A Special Adjudicator CA 31-Jul-2001
The applicant had sought asylum. Her case had been refused, according to the law as stated at that time, but the decision then binding on the adjudicator (Shah), had been reversed in the House of Lords. It had now been held that the women of a . .

Cited by:

Cited – NR (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Aug-2009
The appellant had been convicted of supplying drugs, and ordered to be returned to Jamaica after her sentence. She had resisted saying that, as a lesbian, she would be persecuted if returned. The respondent conceded that the IAT had made an error of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193377

Al-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals): HL 5 Feb 2004

The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having been rehoused in other areas had lost any connection with the area. The applicants said that the re-housing had been compulsory, being part of a policy of dispersal of asylum applicants, and so their connection with the appellate local authorities was not lost.
Held: The authorities’ appeals were dismissed. The applicants had not exercised any real sense of choice in accepting dispersal. It was wrong to describe a Hobson’s choice as a real choice. If asked ‘Did you choose to live in Glasgow’ the only true answer could be ‘No.’ A normal residence which might operate to defeat a local connection with a previous area had to be of the resident’s own choice. This choice had not been freely made.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 4, Times 06-Feb-2004, Gazette 04-Mar-2004, [2004] 2 AC 159

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 198

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Al-Ameri, Osmani v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea/London Borough of Harrow CA 28-Feb-2003
The applicants sought to assert a local connection, having been housed in the respondent’s areas as destitute asylum seekers.
Held: The accomodation was not one of the applicant’s choice, and therefore could not be relied upon to establish a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch HL 1975
The House considered the availability of duress as a defence on a charge of aiding and abetting murder. Referring to the basic elements of criminal liability, mens rea and actus reus: ‘Both terms have, however, justified themselves by their . .
Distinguished – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
Cited – Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1-Nov-2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under . .
Cited – Regina v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex parte Betts; In re Betts HL 27-Jul-1983
Mr Betts applied to Eastleigh for accommodation under the 1977 Act. They said that he had no local connection and referred his application to Blaby where the applicant and his family had formerly been living. Blaby accepted the referral and offered . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council CA 4-May-2006
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192675

N v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Zimbabwe): IAT 4 Dec 2003

Appeal with leave against the determination of an Adjudicator sitting at Bradford, dismissing on asylum and human rights grounds the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the respondent to give directions for the appellant’s removal from the United Kingdom.

Citations:

[2003] UKIAT 00163

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192552