Category: Immigration

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Najem: Admn 1 Aug 1998

An Afghan national sought travel documents from the Home Department. It refused them in accordance with their policy that he must first apply to the Afghan Embassy and only if they refuse, unreasonably, will the Home Department supply the travel documents he seeks.

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 829

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138950

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 give rise to a legitimate expectation on which the public in general are entitled to rely. Subject to any indications to the contrary, it could be a representation that the Secretary of State would act in accordance with any obligations which he accepted under the treaty. This legitimate expectation could give rise to a right to relief, as well as additional obligations of fairness, if the Secretary of State, without reason acted inconsistently with the obligations which this country had undertaken.’ (Hobhouse LJ) ‘If there was no statement of executive policy other than the executives ratification of a treaty, it might be possible to say that it was legitimate expectation that the executives treatment and decision of matters falling within the ambit of such a treaty would be dealt with in accordance with that treaty.’
Hobhouse LJ considered the principle of legitimate expectation and said that it is ‘a principle of fairness in the decision-making process’. It is ‘a wholly objective concept and is not based upon any actual state of knowledge of individual immigrants or would-be immigrants; . . however, the application of the principle must be based upon some objectively identifiable legitimate expectation as to how decisions will be made and discretions exercised.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 453, [1998] INLR 570

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
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 – Rashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
Cited – LM and Others v Regina; Regina v M(L), B(M) and G(D) CACD 21-Oct-2010
Each defendant appealed saying that being themselves the victims of people trafficking, the prosecutions had failed to take into account its obligations under the Convention.
Held: Prosecutors had ‘a three-stage exercise of judgment. The first . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138574

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Milazim Behluli: Admn 8 Apr 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 421

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Behluli CA 7-May-1998
The appellant argued that he had a legitimate expectation, based on letters to his solicitor from the Secretary of State, that his application for asylum would be considered pursuant to the Dublin Convention, an unincorporated international treaty. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Behluli CA 7-May-1998
The appellant argued that he had a legitimate expectation, based on letters to his solicitor from the Secretary of State, that his application for asylum would be considered pursuant to the Dublin Convention, an unincorporated international treaty. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138542

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gunn: Admn 22 Jan 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 51

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Maheshwaran CA 14-Feb-2002
The applicant, and asylum seeker, had given his evidence. Though no challenge had been made, and no sufficient reasons given, it was not accepted by the adjudicator.
Held: The burden lay on the asylum seeker to establish his case. A failure to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138172

Regina v A Special Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte B: Admn 17 Dec 1997

Kay J referred to the Secretary of State’s policy documents on the detention and removal of failed asylum seekers and emphasised the need for a careful reappraisal by the Secretary of State in the light of changing circumstances.

Judges:

Jay J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 1148, [1998] Imm AR 182, [1998] INLR 315

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the application of Baram etc) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2001
Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Jun-2003
The claimant challenged his continued detention under the 1971 Act after his appeal to the Immigration Appeal tribunal had been successful. He had been accused of rape, but was convicted of a sexual assault, though still serious. Before being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.138093

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 reason for asylum, but he asserted there were additional reasons for his fears of persecution. The tribunal had found that his refusal was for fear of his own safety.
Held: There was evidence to support the tribunal’s decision and it’s findings of fact could not be described as perverse.

Judges:

Justice Tucker

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 1155

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.138100

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte F S Salem: Admn 11 Dec 1997

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him asylum. The decision had been made and his benefits stopped, but he was not given any detail of the notice for several months.
Held: The decision did appear to have been made and final. The question at issue appeared to have been decided in the cases cited. Leave was refused.

Judges:

Mr Justice Tucker

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 1123

Links:

Bailii

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 Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Bawa Admn 27-Oct-1997
The court considered the effect of a decision letter issued by the Secretary of State but which was not sent to the applicant. Nevertheless it had the effect of stopping his benefits.
Held: The letter was clear and unambiguous; it is in no way . .
Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Salem CA 19-Dec-1997
This was an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review. The issue raised was parallel to issues raised in the Rafiq case which had been heard but on which judgment was presently reserved. The case revealed a real issue of law, . .
Appealed to – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Salem CA 19-Dec-1997
This was an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review. The issue raised was parallel to issues raised in the Rafiq case which had been heard but on which judgment was presently reserved. The case revealed a real issue of law, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.138068

Hilal Al-Jedda: SIAC 18 Jul 2014

lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue

Judges:

Flaux J, Ward UTJ, Sir Stewart Eldon

Citations:

[2014] UKSIAC SC – 66 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
At QBD – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SC – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.536373

Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ): SIAC 7 Feb 2014

Order

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2014] UKSIAC 66/2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
At QBD – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .

Cited by:

At SIAC (3) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At SIAC – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.522155

Adil v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 – Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) – Articles 20 and 21 – Abolition of border control at internal borders – Checks within the territory – Measures having an equivalent effect to border checks – National legislation authorising checks of identity, nationality and residence status by officials responsible for border surveillance and monitoring of foreign nationals in a 20 kilometre area extending from the common border with other State parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Checks intended to combat illegal residence – Legislation laying down certain conditions and guarantees concerning, inter alia, the frequency and intensity of the checks

Citations:

C-278/12, [2012] EUECJ C-278/12 – PPU, [2012] EUECJ C-278/12 – PPU – V, [2012] EUECJ C-278/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:508

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.463207

Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 26 Nov 2010

Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed

Judges:

Keith J (Ch), Jordan SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKSIAC 66/2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At CA (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At Admn (1) – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .

Cited by:

See Also – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
See Also – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.461840

Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Mar 2009

The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement.

Citations:

27021/08, [2009) ECHR 408

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC(1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .

Cited by:

At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At ECHR (1) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
(at ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At ECHR (1) – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At ECHR (1) – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.316654

Mogos v Sectretary of State for the Home Department: CA 18 Jan 2006

Where the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal decided to remit a case to itself for a decision, the scope of the matter to be reconsidered was now limited to that element which had been so remitted. It was not entitled to look at the whole claim afresh

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.238876

Regina (T and Another) v Secretary of State for Health and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2002

The applicant sought financial support whilst her application for asylum was considered. She was HIV positive, and had a child to breastfeed. Without financial assistance she would have to breast feed causing a risk of transmitting HIV to her child.
Held: The Secretary of State should have seen her circumstances as sufficiently exceptional to deserve reconsideration. The possible appalling consequences must justify considering why she should not breast feed.

Judges:

Sir Edwin Jowitt

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 96(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.174767

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Cengiz Doldur: Admn 26 Jun 1997

The applicant sought judicial review of the immigration officer’s finding that he was an illegal immigrant within the section. He had failed to declare that after obtaining temporary permission to enter, he had got married. It was not suggested that he had acted with positive deceit but had failed to disclose the marriage.
Held: The visa had been handed to the applicant’s mother by a Home Officer officer: ‘a person who hands over a visa is lawfully acting in the execution of the Act and it is to that person that a change of circumstances should be related. If, as I find, the deception of the Immigration Service at that time was by not revealing the change in circumstances, it seems to me also that inevitably a person who does not indicate the change in circumstances causes to be made, to a person lawfully acting in the execution of the act, a representation which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true. ‘ However at that stage it was not established that the applicant recognised that there had been a material change required to be disclosed, but that could not be said at the time he signed the required declarations. ‘there is an irresistible inference that he knew that he would not be allowed into the UK if he revealed his marriage.’ The application was dismissed.

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 600

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 33(1)

Citing:

Cited – Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
Cited – In re Saidur Rahman QBD 1977
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137545

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Savas: Admn 24 Apr 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 410

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

reference from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Savas ECJ 23-May-2000
A convention between the European Union and Turkey had direct effect under one article, but was not sufficiently detailed in other provisions to give a right to an individual to enforce its provisions. The article required Turkish nationals not to . .
See Also – Savas, Regina (on the Application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137355

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Ex Parte Canbolat: QBD 24 Feb 1997

The Home Secretary was entitled to take his own view that the French would properly apply their own asylum procedures when considering the return of an asylum seeker to that country.

Citations:

Times 24-Feb-1997

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87820

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi, Same v Same, ex parte Gawe: QBD 24 Feb 1994

The Secretary of State must state all the facts on which his opinion had based when ordering the deportation of an Asylum-seeker as to the safety of the destination country. ‘In a situation in which it is to be expected that most or all of the information about the asylum practices of third countries is in the hands of the Secretary of State, it would make a mockery of the special adjudicator’s independent duty of rigorous scrutiny if the Secretary of State, having balanced the pros and cons and come to his own conclusion about the safety of a Third Country, could rely upon the face of the certificate which he accordingly grants as sufficient to sustain the certificate on appeal, so long as the asylum-seeker is unable to produce enough of his or her own evidence to controvert it. ‘ and ‘Correspondingly, given the Secretary of State’s monitoring role and his opportunities to gather information through other organs of government, in particular the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is incumbent, in my view, on the Home Office representative before a special adjudicator to disclose not only what facts are relied on in support of the certificate (and they may in many cases be simply that nothing at all is known to the detriment of the Third Country), but to disclose any factual material pointing in the opposite direction. The fact that the Secretary of State will himself have considered such material and rejected it in issuing his certificate cannot be relevant: if it were, the special adjudicator would become the handmaiden of the Secretary of State, incapable of exercising independent judgment except where an applicant was independently able to cast doubt upon the basis of the certificate. ‘ The court referred to the case of two refugees who had come to the United Kingdom from Colombia via Spain, and who were returned to Spain as a safe third country. According to a report of Amnesty International the two refugees were returned from Spain to Colombia without any substantive consideration of their claim for asylum. Sedley J. commented: ‘The asylum-seekers evidently did not know of the two cases: the Home Office, which I infer did know, did not consider itself under any obligation to draw them to the attention of the adjudicator; and if the adjudicator knew of them, he took them in each case to be off limits because they had not been canvassed in evidence. If this was the situation, I cannot believe that any reasonable observer would think that it had much to do with the standards of scrutiny and fairness which Lord Bridge was describing in Re Musisi, or indeed represented anything but legalistic technicalities. ‘ Beither applicant had had a fair hearing, and that the decisions of the two adjudicators fell to be quashed for breach of natural justice. ‘In each case the asylum-seeker was entitled to disclosure by the Secretary of State and the adjudicator was entitled to his assistance. The Secretary of State was in a position to afford these, but they were not afforded. ‘ The certificates of the Secretary of State should also be quashed, on the ground that his decision was logically untenable, and therefore irrational in law.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi HL 1987
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Abdi and Another CA 21-Apr-1994
The Home Secretary has no duty to show the factual evidence he had relied upon as to the safety of a deportee’s destination country.
The Home Secretary need not state all information on which his certificate was based. The court recognised the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87826

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ademola Onibiyo: QBD 24 Jan 1996

The applicant, a Nigerian, applied for judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to revoke a deportation order. He had overstayed his limited leave. He wanted the respondent to refer new material back to the immigration authorities. The respondent refused to treat this request as a new application.
Held: A new ground for asylum arising after an application was rejected does not create a new appeal right.

Citations:

Independent 24-Jan-1996, Times 29-Jan-1996

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87828

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naheed Ejaz: QBD 23 Jul 1993

Using somebody else’s British passport, the applicant’s husband had masqueraded as a British citizen. The applicant had applied under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act for naturalisation as a British citizen on the ground that she was married to a British citizen and she had duly obtained a certificate of naturalisation.
Held: Although her husband was not a British citizen, the applicant’s citizenship existed until she was deprived of it under section 40 of the 1981 Act. Section 40 appied only to the person who was decsribed in the certificate of naturalisation. If he was not that the person then the certificate could grant him nothing.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-1993, [1994] QB 496

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz CA 7-Dec-1993
The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hicks CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant was held as a suspected terrorist by the US government in Guantanamo Bay. He had Australian citizenship but qualified also for British citizenship. He had sought that citizenship and protection. The secretary of state appealed an order . .
Cited – Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka CA 18-Jul-2007
The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87740