Category: Immigration

Khaboka v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1993

A refugee does not become a refugee because of recognition as such. He is recognised because he is a refugee so, for the purposes of Article 31.1 the term refugee includes someone who is only subsequently established as being a refugee, in other words a bona fide claimant.

Citations:

[1993] Imm AR 483

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951) (Cmd 917) 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Immigration

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.237478

Dursun v Secretary of State for the Home Department: 1993

The Home Secretary is able to collect information about the policies of other countries from many sources.

Citations:

[1993] Imm AR 169

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same, Ex Parte Gawe HL 15-Feb-1996
Two Somali nationals were refused asylum and sought to challenge a decision rejecting their claim that to be sent to Spain would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
Held: Adjudicators are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.219248

Regina (Khan) v Oxfordshire County Council: QBD 4 Oct 2002

The applicant sought review of the authority’s decision not to offer her housing. She was subject to immigration control. She had been the victim of domestic violence and of abduction.
Held: The authority could provide assistance under either Act, unless prohibited by statute. The limitation in the 1948 statute did apply to restrict the authority’s decision under the 2000 Act. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances the decision not to provide assistance was unreasonable, and review was granted.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Gazette 31-Oct-2002, Times 04-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Immigration, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.177845

Regina (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator: Admn 16 Jul 2002

The appellant challenged an order denying him asylum and for his return to Pakistan. He said that his return would infringe his human rights be exposing him to denial of his rights to freedom of thought and religious belief.
Held: The considerations under article 9 were the same as those already expounded by the court with regard to article 6 in this situation. There is a permitted derogation under both articles for considerations of immigration control. The most the court could do would be to consider whether there was be a flagrant interference with the right. That did not apply here.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.174788

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Owalabi: QBD 3 Jan 1996

The Home Secretary may evaluate fresh material himself under the section, without always referring the case back to the adjudicator.

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1996

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Adopted – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Bellow 25-May-1995
. .
Adopted – Regina v Home Secretary, Ex parte Khaldoon 8-Nov-1995
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87891

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ex parte Chahal: QBD 5 Apr 1993

The Home Secretary need not consider any risk of torture as an issue separate from that of persecution, when considering making an order for deportation.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal CA 27-Oct-1993
Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat . .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87941

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Singh: QBD 8 Jun 1987

The Refugee Convention had ‘indirectly’ been incorporated under English law. The court considered whether a person allowed entry by an immigration officer was lawfully here irrespective of other considerations. As to the case of Musis in the Bugdaycay case: ‘Each of the present applicants had only been granted temporary admission and they required, but had not received, leave to enter under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and by section 11 (1) of that Act a person is deemed not to have entered the United Kingdom so long as he is detained or temporarily admitted or released while liable to detention under the powers conferred by Schedule 2 of the Act. For the purposes of the Convention, a person temporarily admitted is therefore not to be regarded as lawfully in the territory. He is instead in an intermediate position which also differs from those in the country illegally . . ‘

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-1987, [1987] Imm AR 489

Statutes:

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.220675

Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship): ECJ 8 Mar 2011

ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the previous exercise by him of his right of free movement in the territory of the Member States – Grant, in the same circumstances, of a derived right of residence, to an ascendant relative, a third country national, upon whom the minor child is dependent – Consequences of the right of residence of the minor child on the employment law requirements to be fulfilled by the third-country national ascendant relative of that minor
A Colombian national had been living in Belgium with his wife, and working (and paying social security contributions), but without a right to reside. Their three children, born between 2003 and 2005, acquired Belgian nationality at birth, and with it European citizenship and the right of free movement, under article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). When in 2005 he lost his job, he was refused unemployment benefit, because under the relevant national law that depended on his having a right to reside. The European court held that the refusal of such a right was unlawful because it would result in the children being deprived of effective enjoyment of their rights as European citizens.

Judges:

Skouris P

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-34/09, C-34/09, [2011] All ER (EC) 491, [2011] 2 FCR 491, [2011] ECR I-1177, [2011] Imm AR 521, [2012] QB 265, [2011] INLR 481, ECLI:EU:C:2011:124, [2011] 2 CMLR 46, [2012] 2 WLR 886

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, TFEU 20

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 30-Sep-2010
ECJ Opinion – Articles 18, 20 and 21 TFEU – Fundamental rights as general principles of European Union law – Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – European citizenship – . .

Cited by:

Cited – Campbell (Exclusion; Zambrano) Jamaica UTIAC 21-Mar-2013
UTIAC 1. Exclusion decisions are not be confused with exclusion orders.
2. It is settled law that the Secretary of State has the power to make an exclusion decision: see R (on the application of Naik) v . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Cited – Dereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .
Cited – HC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-Nov-2017
This appeal concerns the rights of so-called ‘Zambrano carers’ and their children to financial support from the state. The appellant, an Algerian national married and had children here, but was refused housing after the break up the marriage. HC . .
Cited – Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Apr-2012
Challenge to payment of Zambrano Income Support . .
Cited – DH (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Dec-2012
Elias LJ said: ‘The right of residence is a right to reside in the territory of the EU. It is not a right to any particular quality of life or to any particular standard of living. Accordingly, there is no impediment to exercising the right to . .
Cited – Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another Admn 10-Apr-2013
. .
Cited – Sanneh and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 10-Feb-2015
The appeals concerned the question of whether ‘Zambrano carers’, who are non-EU citizens responsible for the care of an EU citizen child, are entitled to social assistance (that is, non-contributory welfare benefits) on the same basis as EU citizens . .
Cited – Secretary Of State For The Home Department v CS (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
The Court of Justice held: ‘that there are very specific situations in which, despite the fact that the secondary law on the right of residence of third-country nationals does not apply and the Union citizen concerned has not made use of his freedom . .
Cited – Rendon Marin (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member . .
Cited – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration, Children

Leading Case

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.452172

Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 22 Feb 2017

Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the Secretary of State by the 1998 Act to act compatibly with the right to respect for family life guaranteed by article 8 of the ECHR. In each case, the Secretary of State concluded that the appellant did not qualify for leave to remain under the applicable provisions of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and that, applying the Immigration Directorate Instructions, ‘Family Members Under the Immigration Rules, Section FM 1.0, Partner and ECHR Article 8 Guidance’ there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of leave to remain outside the Rules.
Held: The appeals failed. The Rules and Instructions applied in these cases were consistent with the proper application of article 8.
In the first case, there was no evidence placed before the respondent that there were exceptional circumstances. Ms Agyarko’s claim could not be regarded as very strong or compelling.
As to Ms Ikuga, part of the decision was incorrectly based. However, looking at the decision taken, the result would have been the same, and she not having put forward anything which might constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ as defined in the Instructions, that is unjustifiably harsh consequences for the individual such that the refusal of the application would not be proportionate.
The ground of challenge under Article 20 EU failed. If a situation were to arise in which the refusal of a third-country national’s application for leave to remain in the UK would force his or her British partner to leave the EU, in breach of article 20 TFEU, such a situation could be addressed under the Rules as one where there were ‘insurmountable obstacles’, or in any event under the Instructions as one where there were ‘exceptional circumstances’. Typically, however the British citizen would not be forced to leave the EU, any more than in the case of Dereci, and the third-country national would not, therefore, derive any rights from article 20 .

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Kerr
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Carnwath
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 11, [2017] WLR(D) 126, [2017] 3 CMLR 3, [2017] 1 WLR 823, [2017] Imm AR 764, [2017] INLR 548, UKSC 2015/0129

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Agyarko and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
Appeals against orders for removal after applicants had each married after expiry of the period of their lawful stay. A conceded that her application fell outside the Rules, but said that it was an appropriate case for the exercise of discretion. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing . .
Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
Cited – Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as . .
Cited – Jeunesse v The Netherlands ECHR 3-Oct-2014
(Grand Chamber) Although the applicant had married and had three children while her immigration status in the Netherlands was precarious, there were exceptional circumstances such that a fair balance had not been struck between the competing . .
Cited – Sen v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Dec-2001
. .
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 . .
Cited – Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 1-Dec-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection dismissed (estoppel); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Sezen v The Netherlands ECHR 31-Jan-2006
The case concerned ‘a functioning family unit where the parents and children are living together’. The court considered wehether a deportation would infringe the human rights of te applicant: ‘The Court has previously held that domestic measures . .
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 . .
Cited – MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 8-Oct-2013
The court was asked: ‘How is the reference in rule 398 to ‘exceptional circumstances’ to be understood, compatibly with Convention rights?’
Held: The Court of Appeal accepted the submission made on behalf of the Secretary of State that the . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – Dereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .
Cited – Secretary Of State For The Home Department v CS (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
The Court of Justice held: ‘that there are very specific situations in which, despite the fact that the secondary law on the right of residence of third-country nationals does not apply and the Union citizen concerned has not made use of his freedom . .
Cited – Alokpa and Moudoulou v Ministre Du Travail, De L’Emploi Et De L’Immigration ECJ 10-Oct-2013
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizens who are minor . .
Cited – Iida v Stadt Ulm ECJ 8-Nov-2012
ECJ Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 51 – Directive 2003/109/EC – Third-country nationals – Right of residence in a Member State – Directive 2004/38/EC . .

Cited by:

Cited – HC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-Nov-2017
This appeal concerns the rights of so-called ‘Zambrano carers’ and their children to financial support from the state. The appellant, an Algerian national married and had children here, but was refused housing after the break up the marriage. HC . .
Cited – Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Nov-2018
Ms R had overstayed, but resisted deportation claiming a long term relationship with a man for who she cared. Her leave was continued 11 times. A Seventh Day Adventist, the care she provided was as a friend. Indefinite leave to remain was refused . .
Cited – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Cited – Dereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, European

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.575309

Patel v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 13 Dec 2017

Judges:

Lord Justice Lindblom
Lord Justice Irwin
And
Lady Justice Thirlwall

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2028, [2018] Imm AR 584, [2018] 1 WLR 5245, [2018] 2 CMLR 22, [2018] INLR 179, [2018] 2 All ER 1093

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.601452

Rendon Marin (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union): ECJ 13 Sep 2016

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member State – Parent having sole care of two minor children, who are Union citizens – First child possessing the nationality of the Member State of residence – Second child possessing the nationality of another Member State – National legislation precluding grant of a residence permit to the father because of his criminal record – Refusal of residence capable of resulting in the children being obliged to leave the territory of the European Union
As to the case law: ‘the common feature that, although they are governed by legislation which falls, a priori, within the competence of the member states, namely legislation on the right of entry and residence of third-country nationals outside the scope of provisions of secondary legislation which provide for the grant of such a right under certain conditions, they nonetheless have an intrinsic connection with the freedom of movement and residence of a Union citizen, which prevents the right of entry and residence being refused to those nationals in the member state of residence of that citizen, in order not to interfere with that freedom.’

Judges:

K. Lenaerts, P

Citations:

[2017] CEC 527, [2016] EUECJ C-165/14, [2017] QB 495, [2017] Imm AR 205, [2016] WLR(D) 481, [2017] 2 WLR 117, [2017] 1 CMLR 29, ECLI:EU:C:2016:675

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – HC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-Nov-2017
This appeal concerns the rights of so-called ‘Zambrano carers’ and their children to financial support from the state. The appellant, an Algerian national married and had children here, but was refused housing after the break up the marriage. HC . .
Cited – KA and Others (Regroupement Familial En Belgique) (Border Control, Asylum, Immigration – Judgment) ECJ 8-May-2018
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Border control, asylum, immigration – Article 20 TFEU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 7 and 24 – Directive 2008/115/EC – Articles 5 and 11 – Third-country national subject to an . .
Cited – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.569382

Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve: ECJ 20 Sep 2001

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal du travail de Nivelles – Belgium. Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) – Council Directive 93/96/EEC – Right of residence for students – National legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allowance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees – Foreign student who has met his own living expenses during the first years of his studies.
One member state could not apply conditions for the grant of benefits to students to citizens of other member states which it did not apply to its own nationals. A citizen of the European Union, lawfully resident in the territory of a host member state, could rely on article 6 of the Treaty in all situations which fell within the scope ratione materiae of Community law, including the exercise of the right conferred by article 8a to move and reside freely in another member state. This applied even though otherwise benefits for students had been ruled to be outside the scope of this regulation.

Judges:

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President and Judges C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, L. Sevon, R. Schintgen and F. Macken Advocate General S. Alber

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-184/99, C-184/99, [2003] All ER (EC) 385, [2001] ECR I-6193

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Cited – Brown v Secretary Of State For Scotland (Rec 1988,P 3205) (Sv88-489 Fi88-489) (Judgment) ECJ 21-Jun-1988
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 3-May-2006
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen.
Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. . .
Cited – Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 4-Apr-2006
The claimant had dual Irish and US nationality. He therefore also was a citizen of the EU. He complained that the British rules against payment of job seekers’ allowance were discriminatory. The matter had already been to the ECJ.
Held: The . .
Cited – Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 27-Nov-2008
The claimant entered the UK as a student coming from Poland. She then worked as a kitchen maid, but having left that job on becoming a mother was refused income support. She later returned to work. She said that the rules which denied her benefit . .
Cited – Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .
Cited – Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.166205

Patel v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Dec 2019

Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union citizenship rights on removal of the TCN parent from the EU.
P an Indian national with no right to remain in the UK cared for his parents, British citizens. P helped with his father’s kidney dialysis, and cared for his immobile mother. Both relied on him. The father’s dialysis medication may not be available in India. The FTT found that P’s father would not return to India with P; instead, he would continue to receive medical treatment in the UK, although that to a lesser quality of life than P’s care. P failed in invoking the Zambrano principle in the courts below and appealed.
S a Pakistani national, was primary carer of his British citizen infant son. S’s wife is a British national. Whilst Mrs S works full-time, S cares for their son. The FTT found that if S returned to Pakistan, Mrs S would accompany him to Pakistan with their child. The FTT and UT therefore found that S was entitled to remain. The CA held that Mrs S could look after the son here, and the requirement for compulsion to leave the UK was not satisfied. S appealed.
Held: S succeeded but not P.
The test of compulsion is thus a practical test to be applied to the actual facts and not to a theoretical set of facts.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 59, [2020] WLR(D) 14, [2020] Imm AR 600, [2020] INLR 350, [2020] 2 All ER 557, [2020] 2 CMLR 12, [2020] 1 WLR 228, UKSC 2018/0006

Links:

Bailii, SC Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 May 07 am Video, SC 2019

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
Cited – KA and Others (Regroupement Familial En Belgique) (Border Control, Asylum, Immigration – Judgment) ECJ 8-May-2018
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Border control, asylum, immigration – Article 20 TFEU – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 7 and 24 – Directive 2008/115/EC – Articles 5 and 11 – Third-country national subject to an . .
Appeal from – Patel v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 13-Dec-2017
. .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Cited – Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve ECJ 20-Sep-2001
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal du travail de Nivelles – Belgium. Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) – Council Directive 93/96/EEC – . .
Cited – Chavez-Vilchez and Others (Union Citizenship – Article 20 TFEU – Access To Social Assistance and Child Benefit Conditional On Right of Residence In A Member State : Judgment) ECJ 10-May-2017
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Union citizenship – Article 20 TFEU – Access to social assistance and child benefit conditional on right of residence in a Member State – Third-country national responsible for the primary day-to-day care of her . .
Cited – Rendon Marin (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member . .
Cited – O and S v Maahanmuuttovirasto V L ECJ 6-Dec-2012
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Directive 2003/86/EC – Right to family reunification – Union citizens who are minor children living with their mothers, who are third country nationals, in the . .
Cited – Dereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .
Cited – MCB (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) ECJ 5-Oct-2010
ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility – The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction – Regulation . .
Cited – HC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-Nov-2017
This appeal concerns the rights of so-called ‘Zambrano carers’ and their children to financial support from the state. The appellant, an Algerian national married and had children here, but was refused housing after the break up the marriage. HC . .
Cited – Gueye (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 12-May-2011
ECJ Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Status of victims in criminal proceedings – Protection of victims – Determination of the sentence – Obligation to issue an accessory penalty of expulsion prohibiting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.645794

Regina (on the application of Loutchansky and Others) v The First Secretary of State: 2005

The court considered the right of a worker claiming a community right to work here: ‘the underlying principle is that, in order to render a community right effective, it may be necessary to recognise a derivative right in a non-national who has no independent community rights.’ The Austrian employer would not be able to exercise its Art 49 rights without having the advantage of Dr Loutchansky’s entry into, and service within, the UK. Any prohibition on Dr Loutchansky’s entry and service had therefore to be justified, and such justification assessed in accordance with community law procedures.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2005] 3 CMLR 15

Statutes:

EC Treaty 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Low and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2009
In each case the applicant, a company based in Ireland had employed in its restaurants, Chinese nationals who were unlawfully present here. The company sought judicial review of the arrest of its employees.
Held: ‘None of the claimants had any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.280082

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Xuereb: QBD 14 Jun 2000

The fact that an alien was detained under the Mental Health Acts did not mean that he could not be ordered to be removed and returned to his own country. The power given to the Secretary of State was discretionary, and though the treatment he might receive was of a lower standard, it was not an unreasonable exercise of the discretion. He also retained the powers under the earlier act and could rely upon those powers. The later Act was not an exhaustive statement of his powers.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 86, Immigration Act 1971 SCh 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Immigration

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.85527

E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc: CA 2 Feb 2004

The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted.
Held: The view that appeals were restricted to issues of law might give rise to unfairness and was no longer correct. What might otherwise have been an appeal on the facts could become an issue of law. There were two conflicting sets of authorities. Irrationality or procedural irregularity or even in certain circumstances a mistake of fact can amount to an error of law. Appeals of law ‘are treated as encompassing the traditional judicial review grounds of excess of power, irrationality, and procedural irregularity.’ and ‘In our view, the time has now come to accept that a mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness is a separate head of challenge in an appeal on a point of law, at least in those statutory contexts where the parties share an interest in co-operating to achieve the correct result. Asylum law is undoubtedly such an area. Without seeking to lay down a precise code, the ordinary requirements for a finding of unfairness are apparent from the above analysis of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board case ([1999] 2 AC 330). First, there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter. Secondly, the fact or evidence must have been ‘established’, in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable. Thirdly, the appellant (or his advisers) must not been have been responsible for the mistake. Fourthly, the mistake must have played a material (not necessarily decisive) part in the tribunal’s reasoning.’

Judges:

Master Of The Rolls Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 49, Times 09-Feb-2004, [2004] QB 1044, [2004] INLR 268, [2004] BLGR 463, [2004] 2 WLR 1351

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Kibiti v Home Secretary CA 2000
The court took a strict approach to the issue of admission of evidence which might demnostrate that the decision under appeal was based upon an error of fact. The appellant was a citizen of the Congo who had been refused asylum and failed in his . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A HL 11-Mar-1999
A police doctor’s statement in a contemporary medical report that her findings were consistent with the claimant’s allegation had not been included in the evidence before the CICB when it rejected her claim for compensation.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Powis CA 1981
Material not available to the decision maker should not normally be admitted on an application for a judicial review of that decision. The court described three categories of acceptable new evidence: (1) evidence to show what material was before the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Ruslanas Bagdanavicius, Renata Bagdanaviciene v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Nov-2003
Failed Roma asylum applicants challenged an order for their return to Lithuania. There had been family objections to the mixed marriage leaving them at risk of violence from the local mafia, and an order for their return would infringe their article . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Goldsmith v The London Borough of Wandsworth CA 27-Aug-2004
The claimant, a very elderly lady had lived in a residential home for some time. She fell and was admitted to hospital. The respondent said she could only leave the hospital to go to a nursing home. She and her family sought her return to the . .
Cited – Gungor, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2004
The claimant made a further claim for asylum after his first claim had failed and his appeal rejected. He claimed that as a Kurd, he would face arrest if returned to Turkey. His passport had had a false visa stamp attached.
Held: While the . .
Cited – Mazrae v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 28-Jul-2004
The asylum applicant renewed his application for leave to challenge the finding that there was no sufficiently substantial risk to his life if he was returned to Iran, and to introduce new evidence. His account had been rejected as unreliable, but . .
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Wildman, Regina (on the Application of) v The Office of Communications Admn 25-Jul-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of an order quashing the decision of the Office of Communications to refuse a radio licence.
Held: The court should be very cautious before quashing a decision as to the allocation of broadcasting licences. . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 27-Apr-2007
The applicant sought publication of a report prepared for the respondent as to the even handedness of its reporting of matters in the middle east. The BBC had refused saying that the release of the report would have direct impact on its ability to . .
Cited – McDougal, Regina (On the Application of) v Liverpool City Council Admn 22-Jul-2009
Right Questions asked on School Closure
The claimant sought to challenge the respondent’s decision to close a local school. The choice had been made on academic results and the number of vacancies.
Held: The application failed. The Council had complied with its obligation in . .
Cited – Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v Ene Aegiali I ComC 5-Nov-2010
No appeal on facts from award
The defendant ship owners sought to strike out the claimant’s appeal against an arbitration award to the extent that that appeal consisted of an appeal against the factual findings. The claimant argued that the parties had agreed that such an appeal . .
Cited – Djanogly v Westminster City Council CA 19-Apr-2011
The appellant challenged the defendant’s order imposing parking charges for motor-cycles. He challenged the assertion that the charges were properly part of a traffic management scheme, and secondly he attacked the findings of the respondent’s cost . .
Cited – Castletown Estates Ltd and Another v Welsh Ministers Admn 1-Nov-2013
The claimants challnged the decision of the respondents to refuse permission for the development of former industrial land for residential puroposes. The permission had been refused on the basis of flood maps which the claimants said were . .
Cited – IA (Iran) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department (Scotland) SC 29-Jan-2014
The appellant Iranian challenged refusal of his claim for asylum. He had been granted refugee status in Iraq and in Turkey by the United Nations commission, but on arrival in the UK, his asylum claim had been rejected on the basis of the credibility . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council, Regina (on The Application of) v SSEFRA and Another SC 11-Dec-2019
Two appeals as to the circumstances in which the concept of ‘statutory incompatibility’ will defeat an application to register land as a town or village green where the land is held by a public authority for statutory purposes. In the first case, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.192593

Regina (Husan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 24 Feb 2005

The applicant sought asylum from Bangladesh. His application was refused, and the respondent issued a certificate to say that his claim was hopeless. He sought judicial review.
Held: There was so much evidence that Bangladesh suffered persecution and human rights abuses that no rational decision maker could list it as country to which asylum seekrs could safely be returned, and its listing was unlawful. Persecution within the meaning of the Refugee Convention will by its nature often be directed towards minorities. Nevertheless, the applicant had failed to establish that he had taken any proper steps which might have reduced the risks to him personally if returned, and his claim for asylum still failed.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-2005, [2005] EWHC 189 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Contrasted – Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 14-Nov-2001
Mistreatment was found to be only localised in India, allowing an asylum seeker to be returned. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.223059

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 a highly technical provision which for the purposes of immigration control introduces into the legislative scheme a necessary fiction as to what constitutes entry to the UK, but talks about entry, not arrival. It could not therefore be used as the definition to be applied under the Regulations. The provision was ambiguous. A strict interpretation would often result in unfairness, as in this case. Read properly the claims should have been allowed.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 54

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1967), Immigration Act 1971 11

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 – Kola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-May-2004
. .
Appeal from – Kola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-May-2004
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Shire v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 13-Oct-2003
The claimant, a Somali woman, had arrived at Gatwick Airport from Yemen at 10.30 pm on 29 August 1999 and not claimed asylum until 31 August (the intervening day being a bank holiday). Her reason for not claiming at Gatwick was that she was . .
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 – Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261603

Ahmadi and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 14 Apr 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 687 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ahmadi and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Dec-2005
Of two brothers, one sought to remain here to protect the other (a refugee settled here) from the consequences of his florid schizophrenia.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The brother settled here had brought contingent separate proceedings in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.224531

Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 6 Oct 2005

Judges:

Andrew Nicol QC

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2863 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Apr-2006
Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language . .
Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.236625

Oniboyo: CA 1996

The court set out the test of what was a new claim for asylum.

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

[1996] IAR 370

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190491

Regina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X: CA 1997

Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21.
Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best efforts, elapses before their applications are disposed of means inevitably that they can fall within a class who local authorities can properly regard as being persons whose needs they have a responsibility to meet by the provision of accommodation under section 21(1)(a).’ The National Assistance Act 1998 was ‘a prime example of an Act which is ‘always speaking’ and so should be construed ‘on a construction, that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed”

Judges:

Woolf MR

Citations:

[1997] 1 CCLR 85, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – Victor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another CA 8-Mar-2000
A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186462

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

The court contemplated the possibility of an appeal by an applicant whose leave granted ex parte had been subsequently discharged.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1990] Imm AR 98

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: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182914

Regina (Puspalatha) v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal: 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 333

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Choudhrey v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 1-Aug-2001
The applicant sought to review refusal of his request to appeal in turn the refusal of his request for asylum as an Ahmadi from Pakistan. He had twice been assaulted by a non-government racist group. There was legislation having the effect of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182196

Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 2001

The relevant test of whether an order returning an asylum applicant to another country would infringe his human rights was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner faced a real risk of relevant ill treatment if returned. There must be substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would face a real risk of the adverse effect which he or she claims to fear. A reviewing court must assess the judgment which would or might be made by an adjudicator on appeal: ‘although the [Convention] rights may be engaged, legitimate immigration control will almost certainly mean that derogation from the rights will be proper and will not be disproportionate.’

Judges:

Collins J, Mr C M G Ockelton and Mr J Freeman

Citations:

[2001] INLR 354, [2002] Imm AR 213

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Mar-2002
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Mar-2002
. .
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: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181861

Ayman Ibrahim: CA 2001

Citations:

[2001] Imm AR 430, [2001] EWCA Civ 519

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mohammad, Manoharan, Sakhee, Yogarajah v The Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 24-Jan-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers. They were made subject to certificates issued by the Secretary of State which would require refoulement, for them to be returned to the country into which they first made their escape for their application for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180668

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Abdullah Turgut: Admn 22 May 1998

The appellant sought exceptional leave to remain, having been refused asylum.
Held: The issue concerned a Turkish citizen seeking asylum because he feared persecution if he was returned to Turkey, in being a Kurdish draft evader likely to be imprisoned and so subject to torture. ‘The authorities and Courts will view such claims with great care; but the machinery by which that is normally done in the first instance is through appeal to the Special Adjudicator. That has been done, that decision was unavailabl;e but the Secretary of State said in his recent letter that the Special Adjudicator found that the draft evasion would not result in him being subject to degrading and inhuman treatment. Now, he has then sought to raise the matter again with the Secretary of State under his undoubted power to grant exceptional leave to remain, and he has submitted a letter from an expert, Mr McDowell, on the likely treatment in Turkish prisons; but the Secretary of State has considered that in a series of letters, and he has given his grounds for not believing that then will be a breach of this applicant’s rights. There are no grounds specifically directed to those reasons. In any event, it seems it was impossible to say that the Secretary of State’s decision is unlawful or manifestly in breach of the Convention or offends any other judicial review principle.’ Leave refused.

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 592

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 27-Oct-1998
The claimant appealed refusal of special leave to remain here after refusal of his application for asylum.
Held: In view of the new material before the court it was not unarguable that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.138713

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut: CA 27 Oct 1998

The claimant appealed refusal of special leave to remain here after refusal of his application for asylum.
Held: In view of the new material before the court it was not unarguable that the Secretary of State had not properly considered the material before him. Leave was given on that point only, and the case adjourned for further argument.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1625

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Abdullah Turgut Admn 22-May-1998
The appellant sought exceptional leave to remain, having been refused asylum.
Held: The issue concerned a Turkish citizen seeking asylum because he feared persecution if he was returned to Turkey, in being a Kurdish draft evader likely to be . .
Adjourned to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .

Cited by:

Resumed from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.145104

Yelocagi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 31 May 2000

Even though the parties to an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had agreed that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for a re-hearing, where the Appeal Tribunal found that there was enough in the original decision to allow them to determine the appeal without remitting it, they had a duty to decide the appeal and not to remit it.

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1993 No 1661, 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90660

Teame v Aberash and Others; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Dept ex parte Teame: CA 8 Apr 1994

Home Secretary may order deportation of a child’s guardian despite a pending appeal for residence order in favour of the applicant. Such a deportation would not be a contempt of court.

Citations:

Ind Summary 02-May-1994, Times 08-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89759

Srimanoharan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 29 Jun 2000

It was not proper for counsel to raise at an appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, a point which had not been argued at the appeal tribunal with a suggestion that the case be remitted to the tribunal for a re-hearing. The argument that the applicant properly feared prosecution rather than persecution had not been developed, and it was not for the Appeal Tribunal itself to address a point which had not been raised before it.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89462

Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Sep 2000

A stateless asylum applicant who was also unable to return to his previous country of habitual residence, did not become a refugee under the Convention until he displayed a well founded fear of persecution. It was not enough to be unable to return to his former country of residence. The words of the convention clearly made the condition applicable throughout each term of the clause.

Citations:

Times 08-Sep-2000, Gazette 12-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88751

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Yiadom: CA 1 May 1998

The decision to exclude an EU national from United Kingdom for the facilitation of illegal immigration was proper, even though the decision was also motivated by a wish to avoid the costs of prosecution and imprisonment for the national purse.

Citations:

Times 01-May-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88648

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sheik: CA 22 Dec 2000

The applicant had been detained following an administrative decision that he should detained as an illegal immigrant. At law, he had a choice between an application for habeas corpus, where it had to be shown that each day’s detention was justified, and proceeding by way of judicial review of the decision which led to his detention. In review proceedings he must act quickly, or it might be refused. After failing on the review application, and after three years he challenged his detention under habeas corpus. Such a second application was an abuse of process.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-2000, Gazette 08-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88653

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Tohur Ali: CA 18 Dec 1987

The Court considered rule 50 under which ‘parent’ was defined as including – ‘an adoptive parent, where there has been a genuine transfer of parental responsibility on the ground of the original parents’ inability to care for the child . . ‘
Held: (a majority) This expression was not confined to adoption under a ‘legally recognizable adoptive process’.

Judges:

May, Balcombe, Woolf LJJ

Citations:

[1988] 2 FLR 523, [1988] Imm AR 237, [1988] Fam Law 289

Links:

Refworld

Statutes:

Immigration Rules 50

Cited by:

Cited – AA v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa) SC 18-Dec-2013
The appellant child, AA sought entry as the de facto adopted child of his sponsor who had previously been given refugee status. The sponsor had taken parental responsibility of AA under the Islamic Kafala procedure. AA had been admitted under human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Family

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.552387

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Labiche: CA 1991

Immigration legislation gave immigration officers the power to examine any person entering the United Kingdom, and required that a person examined by an immigration officer should be given notice, granting or refusing leave to enter the United Kingdom, not later than 12 hours after the conclusion of his examination. The appellant had been given a notice refusing leave more than 12 hours after being interviewed by an immigration officer, and argued that the notice was out of time.
Held: The argument was rejected. ‘The examination ‘cannot terminate until (a) necessary inquiries by the immigration officer or the Secretary of State have been completed and (b) the immigration officer has received the directions of the Secretary of State’.

Judges:

Fox, Butler-Sloss LJJ, Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce

Citations:

[1991] Imm AR 263

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.551076

Regina v IAT ex parte Nathwani: QBD 1979

The most natural reading of a ministerial statement as to immigration rules is that (in the absence of any statement to the contrary) they will apply to the decisions made until different rules are promulgates, after which decisions will be made according to the new rules.

Citations:

[1979-80] Imm AR 9

Cited by:

Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.346302

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte X: CA 9 Jan 2001

An asylum seeker had come to be detained under the Mental Health Act. The Home Secretary, having refused the asylum application, ordered him to be repatriated.
Held: Though the Secretary of State could only exercise his powers of removal under section 86 of the MHA if it appeared to him to be in the patient’s interests and with the approval of the MHT, the use of his powers under the 1971 Act were not expressly circumscribed in relation to persons detained under the MHA. Though this might lead to greater harm for the applicant, it was not a breach of his Article 3 rights. The two schemes could run side by side, and the Home Secretary appeared properly to have considered the applicant’s mental condition.
Schiemann LJ said that the 1971 Act and the MHA deal with different categories of persons: the mentally ill and immigrants: ‘Parliament when enacting the Immigration Act 1971 had section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959, the predecessor of section 86 of the 1983 Act, in mind: see section 30 of the 1971 Act which extended existing statutory powers for the removal of aliens receiving in-patient treatment for mental illness to all persons subject to immigration control.
Similarly Parliament when enacting the Mental Health Act 1983 had the Immigration Act 1971 in mind. Section 86(1) of the 1983 Act specifically refers to it and paragraph 30 of Schedule 4 and Schedule 6 to the 1983 Act expressly amended section 30 of the 1971 Act to which we have just referred.
The interaction of these two Acts is something to which Parliament has adverted its attention yet what Parliament clearly did not do expressly was to circumscribe the Home Secretary in the use of his Immigration Act powers in the case of Mental Health Act patients.
Parliament could have made special provision for those who fell into both categories, perhaps by providing a special regime for them, perhaps by providing that the Immigration Act regime was to prevail and be the only one, perhaps by providing that the Mental Health Act regime should be the only one. It did not do so. It left in existence two sets of powers either of which could be used subject to the conditions prescribed for the use of that power.
. . There appears to us no reason why the two regimes should not run in parallel in the case of a person who is both an immigrant and mentally ill. Clearly if the Home Secretary proposes to use his Immigration Act powers in relation to a mentally ill person that illness will be a factor which he must take into account. It is not suggested in the instant case that he has failed to do so.’

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 740

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-May-2010
The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights.
Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87940

Regina v Vladic Ex Parte Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 21 Aug 1998

Once a person with limited leave to remain had lost appeal against refusal of asylum application, it was open to the Secretary of state to withdraw leave with immediate effect and issue notice of intention to make deportation order

Citations:

Times 21-Aug-1998

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88222

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nassir: CA 11 Dec 1998

The court should not allow too much complexity in issues of whether an applicant had submitted a renewed application for asylum. The Home Secretary’s discretion had to be preserved.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – 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: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87884

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, ex parte Chowdry: CA 3 Mar 1998

The expedited procedure brought in for asylum appeals from a country certified as unlikely to persecute political opponents, applies also to claimants who had made their claim for asylum before the Act came in.

Citations:

Times 03-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87814

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Berhe: CA 26 May 2000

An immigration appeal tribunal which delivered its decision out of time had the power under the rules to grant to itself an extension of time to allow the judgment to be delivered. It was not essential that reasons be given for such an extension, nor that the parties be given an opportunity to be heard as to such an extension. There were powerful reasons for expecting a tribunal normally to give such reasons, but their absence did not make the decision a nullity.

Citations:

Times 26-May-2000

Statutes:

Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 2070

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85531

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Fayed: CA 7 Sep 2000

A newspaper report written by a journalist quoting an unnamed if reliable source as to words spoken by the Secretary of State was insufficient to found the serious allegation that the Secretary had prejudged the applicant’s application for naturalisation. The report suffered three defects. The source was unnamed, the reporter was himself quoting a party who had not heard the words himself, and the context in which the words had been spoken was unclear. Even had they been established, the words alleged would be insufficient to support the alleged pre-judgement.

Citations:

Times 07-Sep-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Judicial Review, Media

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85517

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex P Sabusi: CA 6 Jan 1999

Whilst an asylum claim remained outstanding it was no possible for the Secretary of State to issue a deportation order after a decision to issue a deportation order. No requirement to leave could be imposed until the determination of the claim.

Citations:

Times 06-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85522