Category: Immigration

B and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 12 Oct 2018

B and ND, the Claimants in this matter, are British Citizens and they were both the holders of British passports. The Security Minister, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the SSHD’), exercised the Royal Prerogative to cancel each of their passports. By these proceedings, the Claimants challenge the legality of those decisions.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2651 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625903

Regina (Gazer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2004

The applicant, an asylum seeker had been placed in the dispersal programme. He complained that where he was sent he would be likely to be subject to harm from the local population. He said this should have been considered by the respondent. He had been moved to Glasgow and subjected to threats and violence.
Held: The respondent exercised a wide discretion in the manner of implementing the policy, and used by the National Asylum Support Service. He was not required to undertake specific enquiries of the sort requested.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Carnwath LJ, Elias J

Citations:

Times 23-Dec-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Immigration

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.221708

Regina (Kimani) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 31 Jul 2003

An asylum seeker married an Irish national after entry after refusal, but before being removed.
Held: The definition of marriage did not exclude marriages of convenience. Unlike an asylum seeker afraid of returning home, one who had a right to stary pending determination of her appeal had no right to benefits.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Lords Justice Judge and Kay

Citations:

Gazette 02-Oct-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.190510

Doldur v Secretary of State for Home Department (No 2): CA 2 Jul 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1138

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Doldur CA 2-Apr-1998
It was wrong to impute deceit to an immigrant who entered after marrying after being given leave to enter when not further questioned about status on entry. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Doldur CA 2-Apr-1998
It was wrong to impute deceit to an immigrant who entered after marrying after being given leave to enter when not further questioned about status on entry. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144617

Regina and H M Immigration Officer v Bensaid: CA 17 Jul 1998

Renewed application for leave to seek judicial review of the Chief Immigration Officer’s decision of 24 March 1997 to refuse the applicant leave to enter the United Kingdom

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1236

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Regina v H M Immigration Officer ex parte Bensaid CA 21-Jul-1997
Application for leave to seek judicial review of the Chief Immigration Officer’s decision of 24 March 1997 to refuse the applicant leave to enter the United Kingdom. . .

Cited by:

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

Immigration

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144715

Regina (Mohamad) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 29 Nov 2002

The applicant challenged the refusal of his plea for asylum. He was an Iraqi Kurd. The order required him to be returned to Iraq.
Held: Notwithstanding the apparent terms of the order, he would in fact be returned to the Kurdish area of Iraq, where he would be safe from any form of persecution other than from members of his girlfriend’s family. Such a threat was not a Convention threat, and the order for return stood. Nor was the finding that the threat failed to reach the threshold where his human rights were engaged, incorrect.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights& Art 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Sarkisian) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 28-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Canaj v Secretary of State for Home Department and Vallaj v A Special Adjudicator CA 24-May-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.178426

MX M (Gender Identity – HJ (Iran) – Terminology) El Salvador: UTIAC 22 Oct 2020

Decision makers should where possible apply the guidance in the Equal Treatment Bench Book and use gender terminology which respects the chosen identity of claimants before them.
The principles in HJ (Iran) are concerned with the protection of innate characteristics. As such they are to be applied in claims relating to gender identity.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 313 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.656758

B v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Serbia and Montenegro-Kosovo): IAT 17 Jun 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKIAT 00013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hysi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Jun-2005
The claimant appealed an order to be returned to Kosovo.
Held: As the son of a gypsy mother and and an Albanian father. As such, he would face persecution if returned if his mixed race parentage became known. If order to return he would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.192391

Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar: CA 17 Feb 1997

This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary of State.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Asylum seekers are not entitled merely because they lack money and accommodation to claim they automatically qualify under section 21(1)(a). They can claim as result of the 1996 Act that as a result of their predicament after they arrive in this country reach a state where they qualify under the subsection because of the effect upon them of the problems under which they are labouring. In addition to the lack of food and accommodation is to be added their inability to speak the language, their ignorance of this country and the fact they have been subject to the stress of coming to this country in circumstances which at least involve their contending to be refugees. Inevitably the combined effect of these factors with the passage of time will produce one or more of the conditions specifically referred to in section 21(1)(a). It is for the authority to decide whether they qualify. In making their decision, they can bear in mind the wide terms of the Direction which gives a useful introduction to the application of the subsection. The authorities can anticipate the deterioration which would otherwise take place in the asylum seekers condition by providing assistance under the section. They do not need to wait until the health of the asylum seeker has been damaged.

Judges:

The Master of The Rolls (Lord Woolf), Lord Justice Waite, Lord Justice Henry

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1032, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997) 1 CCLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar CA 25-Jun-1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within . .
Cited – Rands v Oldroyd 1959
The ejusdem generis rule is, at best, a very secondary guide to the meaning of a statute. The all-important matter is to consider the purpose of the statute. A statute preventing a civil servant contracting for his employers with a company in which . .
Cited – Quazi v Quazi HL 1979
The husband had pronounced a talaq in Pakistan, in accordance with the 1961 Muslim Family Ordinance. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction on the wife’s petition to dissolve the marriage and make consequential orders relating . .
Appeal from – 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 by:

Appealed to – 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 – 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 – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.141428

Help Refugees Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Home Department and Another: CA 3 Oct 2018

United Kingdom’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Europe brought about by the mass migration of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (‘UAS children’) from the Middle East and North Africa, particularly as a result of the conflicts in Syria and Sudan.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2098

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.625414

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

The adjudicator’s function is effectively to retake the Home Secretary’s decision. In doing so he will have regard to the Home Secretary’s policy in relation to the deportation of offenders as a material fact but not as a substitute for or a fetter on the adjudicator’s own judgment. The court substantially departed from the approach taken in earlier cases to the question how far should the adjudicator, in an Article 8 case, arrive at his own independent judgment in deciding whether removal of an appellant would be proportionate (given the legitimate aim of fair immigration control) and therefore lawful by force of Article 8(2). The adjudicator was required: ‘to allow an appeal against removal or deportation brought on Article 8 grounds if, but only if, he concludes that the case is so exceptional on its particular facts that the imperative of proportionality demands an outcome in the appellant’s favour notwithstanding that he cannot succeed under the Rules.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2005] 3 WLR 488, [2005] EWCA Civ 105

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Machado v Secretary of State for the Home Deptment CA 19-May-2005
At issue was a decision of the Home Secretary to deport on grounds of public policy a foreign national married to an EU national with a right of establishment in the United Kingdom. The substantive issue was whether the decision of the IAT to uphold . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Appeal from – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.223280

Allan Samaroo v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 18 Sep 2001

A civil court of appeal has power to hear an application for bail in the course of a judicial review of a committal to custody under the Act pending deportation. Though the applicant could have sought habeas corpus, the court could exercise a similar powers by way of an original jurisdiction. The power to commit a deportee to custody was within the statutory power of the Secretary of State. The power was an inherent one, but was now to be seen in the light of the Human Rights Act. Nevertheless the court should attach particular weight to the views of the Secretary of State. In this case his decision was not to be disturbed.

Citations:

Times 18-Sep-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 by:

Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.180035

Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1990

The court was willing to contemplate the possibility of an appeal by an applicant whose leave granted ex parte had been subsequently discharged.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson M.R

Citations:

[1990] Imm AR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.182913

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Packeer: CA 16 Oct 1996

Renewed application, for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing leave to the applicant, who is a Sri Lankan citizen, to appeal against the determination by a Special Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State of his application for political asylum.

Judges:

Waite, Saville, Otton LJJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 747, [1997] Imm AR 110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140614