Category: Immigration

Regina on the Application of Santia Yogathas v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 25 May 2001

When asking whether it was correct to certify the removal of an asylum seeker to a third country, in the light of a country’s compliance with the Convention, the issue should be approached in an intensely practical fashion. The question was not primarily whether the third country’s laws were compliant, but rather what was the practical effect of those laws for the particular applicant’s circumstances. Here the applicant had come from Sri Lanka via Germany. Any deficiency in Germany’s laws did not put him at risk of further persecution, by him being returned from there to Sri Lanka.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 377

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Sep-2001
When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the . .
At first instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140335

Regina (Sarkisian) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 28 Jun 2001

Citations:

([2002] INLR 80), [2001] EWHC Admin 486

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140341

Sayania v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Same v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 5 Apr 2001

The claimant sought to quash the IAT refusal of leave to appeal a Special Adjudicator’s decision, which had found no exceptional compassionate circumstances. She was a British Overseas Citizen seeking to be united with her family. She asserted that the test applied was too stringent in the light of the Human Rights Act.
Held: The cases indicated no inconsistency between the policies applied and the applicant’s article 8 rights.

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 390

Links:

Bailii

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 – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Isiko; Susan and Shemy Isiko CA 20-Dec-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140312

Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: Admn 27 Feb 2001

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 138

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service CA 10-Apr-2001
. .
At first instance – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, Local Government

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140285

Regina v The Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Samaroo: Admn 20 Dec 2000

Judges:

Thomas J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 435

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Followed – 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 by:

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

Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140252

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Deniz Mersin: Admn 25 May 2000

The Claimant who had established his refugee status.
Held: Where a person has established a right, or something akin to a right, to a status or a benefit, it is incumbent on the relevant authority to grant the status or benefit without unreasonable delay.

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 348, [2000] INLR 511

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Hwez and Khadir v Secretary of State for the Home Departmentand Another Admn 29-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140163

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Shefki Gashi and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Artan Gjoka: Admn 15 Jun 2000

When dealing with the argument that there had been delay in dealing with the applications which amounted to a breach of the requirement of the Dublin Convention that the application should be dealt with expeditiously: ‘I have no doubt that these arguments must be rejected. While naturally the Dublin Convention has regard to the need for those seeking asylum to know their fate as soon as is reasonably possible, it is concerned with the allocation of responsibility for considering claims and caring for refugees. .. . the ratification by the government of a Treaty may create a legitimate expectation that its terms will be applied in dealing with an individual affected by it. That will only be if there is nothing else to show how the Government will act and no statement of policy. Here the respondent has quite clearly indicated that he intends to make use of his powers under s. 2 of the 1996 Act and to apply the Dublin Convention accordingly. In any event, I cannot accept that an individual can have any rights or expectations under the Dublin Convention since it is concerned not to confer benefits on the individual but to ascertain which state should be responsible for dealing with his claim. It may confer benefits on him indirectly in as much as he will not be passed from one state to another and back again and thus ascertaining that responsibility will take less time than if there was no Dublin Convention.’

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 356

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mohammed Hussain Ahmed and Idris Ibrahim Patel Admn 27-Apr-1998
The ratification by the government of a Treaty may create a legitimate expectation that its terms will be applied in dealing with an individual affected by it. (Woolf) ‘I will accept that the entering into a treaty by the Secretary of State could . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Lika) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Dec-2002
The applicant was an ethnic Albanian, whose application for asylum had been rejected on the ground that he had passed through Germany. The Dublin Convention did not create rights enforceable by individuals, its purpose is to produce a system which . .
Cited – Regina (On the Application of Bajram Zeqiri) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2001
The applicant’s case had been delayed to allow a test case as to whether Germany was to be treated as a safe country for the return of asylum seekers. Before the test case appeal was abandoned, circumstances changed so as to allow certification of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140171

Zulfiqar (‘Foreign Criminal’ : British Citizen) Pakistan: UTIAC 11 Sep 2020

The meaning of ‘foreign criminal’ is not consistent over the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the UK Borders Act 2007.
Section 32 of the 2007 Act creates a designated class of offender that is a foreign criminal and establishes the consequences of such designation. That is, for the purposes of section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971, the deportation of that person is conducive to the public good and the respondent must make a deportation order in respect of that person.
A temporal link is established by section 32(1) requiring the foreign offender not to be a British citizen at the date of conviction.
Part 5A of the 2002 Act prescribes a domestically refined approach to the public interest considerations which the Tribunal is required to take into account when considering article 8 in a deportation appeal. Unlike the 2007 Act it is not a statutory change to the power to deport, rather it is a domestic refinement as to the consideration of the public interest question.
Part 5A establishes no temporal link to the date of conviction, rather the relevant date for establishing whether an offender is a foreign criminal is the date of the decision subject to the exercise of an appeal on human rights grounds under section 82(1)(b) of the 2002 Act.
In such a case, the weight to be given to former British citizenship is case-sensitive.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 312 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.656757

Dogbey, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 27 Apr 2018

Application for judicial review of two matters: one is his detention during the period of 6 October 2017 to 14 November 2014; the other is the Secretary of State’s directions issued on 17 October 2017 for his removal from the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Butcher J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1165 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.625518

Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex parte Muriqi Kujtim: Admn 31 Mar 1999

A local authority’s duty to an asylum seeker to provide the basics of life, did not extend to a third re-housing attempt after the applicant had twice been evicted for the use of violence and breaches of house rules.

Citations:

Times 20-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 285, (1999) 2 CCLR 340

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Cited by:

Cited – A v The London Borough of Lambeth Admn 25-May-2001
The applicant was mother of three children, two of whom were autistic. She sought re-housing from the defendant. It was claimed that s17 imposed a specific duty on the authority, having identified a child’s needs, in this case for re-housing, to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139549

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hoverspeed: Admn 2 Feb 1999

Immigration control laws required pre-entry clearance of visitors. To do so it imposed carriers’ liability without which, the requirement for prior entry clearance would have little effect: ‘What, then, is it which is said to justify placing these burdens, and most notably ICLA, upon carriers? The answer is said to be the imperative needs of immigration control in the face of ever-growing pressures from around the world. This too is deposed to in great detail by the respondent and once again I shall simplify it. In 1986 there was a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers, in particular from the Indian subcontinent and West Africa. In the result the visa requirement was extended to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria. ICLA was passed as a necessary adjunct of the visa regime and, more generally, to complement immigration control and facilitate procedures at the port of entry. As the then Home Secretary, Mr Douglas Hurd, made plain at the second reading of the Bill in March 1987, it was intended to ‘make it much more difficult for those who want to come to this country, but who have no valid grounds for doing so . . It is also intended to stop abuse of asylum procedures by preventing people travelling here without valid documents and then claiming asylum before they can be returned’.
The logical necessity for carriers’ liability to support a visa regime is surely self-evident. Why require visas from certain countries (and in particular those from which most bogus asylum seekers are found to come) unless visa nationals can be prevented from reaching our shores? Their very arrival here otherwise entitles them to apply for asylum and thus defeats the visa regime. Without ICLA there would be little or no disincentive for carriers to bring them.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[1999] EuLR 595, [1999] EWHC Admin 95, [1999] INLR 591

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another CA 20-May-2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now . .
Cited – European Roma Rights Centre and others v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another CA 20-May-2003
A scheme had been introduced to arrange pre-entry clearance for visitors to the United Kingdom by posting of immigration officers in the Czech Republic. The claimants argued that the system was discriminatory, because Roma visitors were now . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139359

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Christiana Robinson (Aka John): Admn 7 Dec 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 1125, [1998] QB 929

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – HC v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged refusal of his asylum application saying that the court had failed to take account of the fact that as a homosexual moslem, he would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The IAT had not properly recognised that at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139247

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Lul Omar Adan: Admn 24 Nov 1998

A country which had previously rejected an asylum application could nevertheless properly be a safe third country to which a asylum applicant could be deported. Germany is a country which would abide by its obligations under international treaties.

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 1085

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2(c)

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Department (ex parte Adan) and Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Subaskaran) etc CA 23-Jul-1999
Where a country was a signatory to the Convention, but chose to interpret it so as not to give the same protection against oppression by non-state agents which would be given here, the Home Secretary was wrong to certify such countries, in this case . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Department (ex parte Adan) and Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Subaskaran) etc CA 23-Jul-1999
Where a country was a signatory to the Convention, but chose to interpret it so as not to give the same protection against oppression by non-state agents which would be given here, the Home Secretary was wrong to certify such countries, in this case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139206