Category: Immigration

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi: CA 3 Aug 2000

There is no appeal from the decision of an adjudicator not to recommend that there existed sufficient compassionate grounds for granting exceptional leave to remain in the UK in the absence of any statutory grounds for such a recommendation. A failure to make a recommendation in this situation is not open to judicial review.

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-2000, Gazette 07-Sep-2000

Statutes:

Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 (1984 N0 2041) 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Anderson, Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi QBD 22-Mar-2000
There is no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against either a decision of an adjudicator to make or one to refuse to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State when he was himself refusing an appeal. Nor is such a decision subject to . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Anderson, Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi QBD 22-Mar-2000
There is no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against either a decision of an adjudicator to make or one to refuse to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State when he was himself refusing an appeal. Nor is such a decision subject to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85312

Noune v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2000

Where a conscientious civil servant was threatened by insurgents who sought to persuade her to use her position to their advantage, but that civil servants could not expected to receive the protection of her estate from such insurgents, the Convention would give her protection as a refugee for asylum. The position of government employees in such a situation may be quite different to that of an ordinary employee.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000

Statutes:

Geneva Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951) (Cmd 9171)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84379

Nmaju and Others v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: CA 6 Sep 2000

Where a child seeks indefinite leave to remain in the UK, he must show that there is one parent with sole responsibility for his upbringing. That requirement could not be read to impose any requirement that that parent should have had such responsibility for any length of time, and could be satisfied where the care had been exercised only for a short time. The element of what constituted sole responsibility was not merely a question of legal control, but also incorporates questions as to the actual extent of care given.

Citations:

Times 06-Sep-2000, Gazette 21-Sep-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84311

Macharia v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 25 Nov 1999

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal does not have discretion, whether implied or otherwise, to admit new or further evidence without notice having first been given. The Rules explicitly required advance notice to be given, and nor was it proper for the tribunal itself to introduce evidence. The absence of a rule against such admission of evidence was not conclusive.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1996 No 2070

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Litigation Practice, Administrative

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83275

Howarth v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 1999

The degree of protection from non-state persecution available to an asylum seeker is a relevant factor. Where that protection was inadequate for reasons not related to the nature of that persecution, that also was relevant. It affected the issues of whether persecution existed, whether the fear of it was well founded, and whether the fear of persecution made the protection of the state unavailable. A state cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens.

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 1A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81501

Danian v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Nov 1999

The protection given to an asylum applicant is not lost by acts which might otherwise put his stay here in doubt, provided these were purely for the purpose, even if manipulative, of allowing him to stay. The test remains whether he has a well founded fear of persecution if he returned. Such behaviour would no doubt affect his credibility but was not dispositive of the issue.

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79792

Ahmed (Iftikhar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Dec 1999

The fact that an asylum seeker might not refrain from activities which would attract persecution if he was returned to his country of origin, was not fatal to his application for asylum. There is only one question to be asked: whether, if returned, he would face a serious risk of persecution. The option of internal flight had been not directly relevant, if the claimant’s activities would still be a criminal offence.

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 1A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77677

Dritan Gashi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: IAT 2001

Referring to the decsision in Aissaoui, the tribunal set out guidelines: ‘(1) As a general rule it is best practice for an adjudicator hearing an appeal de novo not to read the Determination of a previous adjudicator unless expressly invited to do so, so as to avoid any misunderstanding of what has influenced him. There is no prohibition, however, on reading the Determination.
(2) If the adjudicator considers it appropriate to read the Determination, he should not do so until he has told the parties of his intention, and invited their comments.
(3) There will be instances where parties invite him to read the Determination because, for example, the findings of fact have been accepted, and the re-hearing is to consider the conclusions to be drawn from those findings. This invitation should be recorded in his Determination.
(4) The previous record of proceedings, and not the earlier Determination, can if necessary provide confirmation of what evidence was given at a previous hearing.
(5) If an Appellant does not attend the de novo hearing, an adjudicator may rely on the evidence given at the previous hearing when forming his independent view of the case, but without reference to an earlier Determination.
(6) Parties seeking to challenge a Determination on the basis that an adjudicator has read a previous Determination should only do so where there are clear grounds for challenge, other than the mere fact of reading the Determination. Reading a previous Determination of itself is not a proper ground of appeal.’

Citations:

(2001) Appeal No: 01TH02902

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aissaoui Admn 1997
The IAT had remitted an appeal to be heard de novo by another adjudicator. The second adjudicator dismissed the appeal, but recorded that the determination of the first adjudicator had been on file and that he had ‘had the advantage of having . .

Cited by:

Cited – Swash v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 26-Jul-2006
The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244738

Regina (G) v Secretry of State for the Home Department; Regina (J) v Same; Regina (K) v Same; Regina (H) v Same; regina (N) v Same: QBD 5 May 2006

The applicants had all been involved in hijacking an aircraft to escape the Taleban in Afghanistan. Their convictions had been quashed on their plea of duress. Immigration adjudicators had decided that they should be allowed to stay temporarily in the UK on a six monthy reviewable basis, on human rights grounds. They now appealed orders by the respondent that leave should not be granted to remain.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The respondent had for 17 months deliberately sought to evade the court order, and would be subject to an order for costs on an indemnity basis for that reason alone. ‘The secretary of state’s conduct was inexcusable. All the efforts of the claimants’ solicitors to obtain an explanation for the delay were met with a deliberate wall of silence. As a public authority, the Home Secretary had a duty to cooperate and to make candid disclosure. Instead there were no detailed grounds, no evidence and further delay. The entirety of the secretary of state’s conduct of this case deserved the strongest possible mark of the court’s disapproval.’

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242885

Applicant A and Another v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another: 1997

(High Court of Australia) A Chinese asylum seeker was not entitled to refugee status on the basis of well-founded fear of persecution by forcible sterilisation by reason of his membership of a ‘particular social group’, namely all fathers of families who had already produced one child, if returned to China under that country’s ‘One Child Policy’
Held: ‘By including in its operative provisions the requirement that a refugee fear persecution, the convention limits humanitarian scope and does not afford universal protection to asylum seekers. No matter how devastating may be epidemic, natural disaster or famine, a person fleeing them is not a refugee within the terms of the convention. And by incorporating the five convention reasons the convention plainly contemplates that there will even be persons fleeing persecution who will not be able to gain asylum as refugees.’

Judges:

Dawson, McHugh and Gunmow JJ; Brennan CJ and Kirby J (dissenting)

Citations:

(1997) 2 BHRC 143, [1997] HCA 4

Cited by:

Cited – Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Jun-2005
The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will.
Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.228504

Regina (G) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 13 Apr 2005

The claimant had first sought asylum saying she was born in 1984. On being refused, she said she was born in 1988 and was only 15 years old, and that her removal and return to Somalia would breach the regulation, and interfere with her right to family life in that she would be separated from her cousin.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the judge had incorrectly applied the case of Razgar, if he had done so correctly, the result would have been the same. The dicta of Lord Bingham were to apply even though this case concerned the right to family life rather than mental health.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Neuberger LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

Times 05-May-2005

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 199 1192)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (G) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 18-Nov-2004
The applicant, when she first made her claim for asylum said she was born in 1984. Before coming to the UK she had first applied for asylum in Italy. She was detained for removal to Italy. At this point she sought to assert that she had in fact been . .
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: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.224884

Z v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2002

The court declined to rule out the possibility that it would be an infringement of a claimant’s human right to deport him, a known homosexual, to a country where he would be persecuted for it.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

[2002] Imm AR 560

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.198263

Regina (on the application of L and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2003

The court considered the circumstances under which a certificate that an asylum claim was clearly unfounded could be issued: ‘[In considering s115] the decision maker will (i) consider the factual substance and detail of the claim (ii) consider how it stands with the known background data (iii) consider whether in the round it is capable of belief (iv) if not, consider whether some part of it is capable of belief (v) consider whether, if eventually believed in whole or in part, it is capable of coming within the refugee convention. If the answers are such that the claim cannot on any legitimate view succeed, than the claim is clearly unfounded; if not, not.’ (para 57).’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR

Citations:

[2003] 1 ALL ER 1062, [2003] 1 WLR 1230

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Atkinson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Atkinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s certification under s94 that his cliam for asylum was hopeless. He said that he had acted as an informer against criminal gangs in Jamaica, and that the state of Jamacia could not provide him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.199264

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 the mistake was first produced in the Court of Appeal. The error could and should have been spotted by the claimant’s advisers before the IAT decision, or at least before the judicial review hearing.
Held: It should nonetheless be admitted. Under Ladd v Marshall it would have fallen ‘at the first hurdle’; but ‘these principles never did apply strictly in public law and judicial review.’ The principle in Al-Mehdawi did not necessarily govern asylum cases.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[2002] INLR 283

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Momin Ali CA 1984
The court discussed the applicability of Ladd -v Marshall principles as to the admission of new evidence in public law proceedings. Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘the decision in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 has as such no place in that context,’ . .
Cited – Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-Nov-1989
The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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. . .
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 – FP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-Jan-2007
The claimants said that rules which allowed an appeal tribunal to proceed in their absence when they were absent through no fault of their own, were unlawful in depriving them of a fair trial. The claimants had each moved house but their former . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Evidence

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.193429

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Khan: 1983

The court considered the need for a judge to give reasons
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘The important matter which must be borne in mind by Tribunals in the present type of circumstances is that it must be apparent from what they state by way of reasons first of all that they have considered the point which is at issue between the parties and they should indicate the evidence on which they have come to their conclusions. Where one gets a decision of a Tribunal which either fails to set out the issue which the Tribunal is determining either directly or by inference, or fails either directly or by inference to set out the basis on which it has reached its determination on that issue, then that is a matter which will be very closely regarded by this Court and in normal circumstances would result in the decision of the Tribunal being quashed. The reason is this. A party appearing before a Tribunal is entitled to know, either expressly stated by it or inferentially stated, what it is to which the Tribunal is addressing its mind. In some cases it may be perfectly obvious without any express reference to it by the Tribunal; in other cases it may not. Second, the Appellant is entitled to know the basis of fact on which the conclusion has been reached. Once again in many cases it may be quite obvious without the necessity of expressly stating it, in others it may not.’

Judges:

Lane CJ

Citations:

[1983] QB 790

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AA069062014 and Others AIT 30-Aug-2017
Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.595470

ex parte Gondolia: 1991

In dismissing the claimant’s application for judicial review, Henry J held: ‘Secondly, it is said, and again correctly, that there is no mention in the adjudicator’s determination and reasons that the initiative for the first introduction of the husband to wife in this arranged marriage came from the wife’s family and not from the husband’s. There is no reference to these matters in the adjudicator’s decision. The first question is: can it be assumed from that that the adjudicator had not taken them into account? In my judgment, it clearly cannot because Mr Weiniger, who appeared then and who has appeared before me, makes it plain to me that they were matters that he relied on before the adjudicator as he relied on them before me. They were there before the adjudicator. They are plain points that would not be overlooked or misunderstood.
The fact they are not referred to is the next point that I deal with. Can it be said that the adjudicator has not given sufficient reasons for his decision? It seems to me that he has given ample reason of his finding and the reasons for it. The reasons for his finding, when finally analyzed, are, first, the lack of credibility so far as the applicant and the sponsor and her father are concerned allied with the economic incentive. In reaching that conclusion, he would have had regard to these points made and it cannot be assumed against him that he gave no regard to them.
When faced with that argument, Mr Weiniger for the applicant said that the vice of it lay in that as the adjudicator had not himself referred to them, so they might not have come to the attention of the Appeal Tribunal. But when one looks at the procedure rules, one sees that the Appeal Tribunal gets the full case papers.
The points were raised in the notice of appeal lodged with that Tribunal. Therefore, they would have had those points before them and would have been able to take them into account. In short, there is nothing here that shows that there is any error of law either relating to the decision of the adjudicator or relating to the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in refusing leave to appeal.’

Judges:

Henry J

Citations:

[1991] Imm AR 519

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Limited – OA163042012 AIT 23-Jul-2014
. .
Explained – IA307162014 AIT 5-Feb-2016
. .
Cited – AA069062014 and Others AIT 30-Aug-2017
Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.595467

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mohd Amin: 1992

Schiemann J said of adjudicators in immigration matters: ‘In my judgment adjudicators should indicate with some clarity in their decisions: (1) what evidence they accept; (2) what evidence they reject; (3) whether there is any evidence as to which they cannot make up their minds whether or not they accept it; (4) what, if any, evidence they regard as irrelevant.’

Judges:

Schiemann J

Citations:

[1992] Imm AR 367

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AA069062014 and Others AIT 30-Aug-2017
Several appellants, all from the same judge, complained of his handling of their cases.
Held: The complaints about the decisions were entirely well-founded: ‘Nobody reading them could detect how the judge reached the conclusion he did, acting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.595468

United States v Ramsey: 6 Jun 1977

United States Supreme Court – Title 19 U.S.C. ss 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant. Acting pursuant to the statute and regulations, a customs inspector, based on the facts that certain incoming letter-sized airmail envelopes were from Thailand, a known source of narcotics, and were bulky and much heavier than a normal airmail letter, opened the envelopes for inspection at the General Post Office in New York City, considered a ‘border’ for border-search purposes, and ultimately the envelopes were found to contain heroin. Respondents were subsequently indicted for and convicted of narcotics offenses, the District Court having denied their motion to suppress the heroin. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applicable to persons, baggage, and mailed packages did not apply to the opening of international mail, and that the Constitution requires that before such mail is opened a showing of probable cause must be made and a warrant obtained.
Held:
1. Under the circumstances, the customs inspector had ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ that there was merchandise or contraband in the envelopes, and therefore the search was plainly authorized by the statute. Pp. 611-616.
2. The Fourth Amendment does not interdict the actions taken by the inspector in opening and searching the envelopes. Pp. 616-625.
(a) Border searches without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 616-619.
(b) The inclusion of international mail within the border-search exception does not represent any ‘extension’ of that exception. The exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country, and no different constitutional standards should apply simply because the envelopes were mailed, not carried the critical fact being that the envelopes cross the border and enter the country, not that they are brought in by one mode of transportation rather than another. It is their entry into the country from without it that makes a resulting search ‘reasonable.’ Pp. 619-621.
(c) The border-search exception is not based on the doctrine of ‘exigent circumstances,’ but is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general principle that a warrant be obtained. Pp. 621-622.
(d) The opening of international mail under the guidelines of the statute only when the customs official has reason to believe the mail contains other than correspondence, while the reading of any correspondence inside the envelopes is forbidden by the regulations, does not impermissibly chill the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, and any ‘chill’ that might exist under such circumstances is not only ‘minimal’ but is also wholly subjective. Pp. 623-624.

Citations:

[1977] USSC 97, 431 US 606, 97 SCt 1972, 52 LEd2d 617

Links:

Worldlii

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Police, Immigration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590308

Laftaly v Secretary of State for the Home Department: 1993

Citations:

[1993] Imm AR 284

Cited by:

Approved – Regina (Saad and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Dec-2001
The grant by the Secretary of State of exceptional leave to remain in the UK, did not remove the right of an asylum seeker to appeal a rejection of his claim for asylum. The applicant had the right to have his status, and the UK’s compliance with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.182317

In re Kahye: CA 26 Feb 2003

The appellant renewed his application for leave to appeal against a refusal of asylum.
Held: Refused. The seven hundred pages of paper submitted on behalf of the applicant were nothing more than a rehearsal of the case which had been presented to the tribunal, and was an invitation to re-assess the facts. Professional advisers should know that leave would only be granted where a point of law was at issue. Abuse of such applications could frustrate the proper administration of immigration laws.

Judges:

Woolf, LCJ, Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.180120

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte X: CA 22 Feb 2001

The applicant had entered the UK without leave, and then been detained for mental illness. The Secretary ordered him to be removed. He claimed that there was no power to remove him whilst the detention order was current, and that the order infringed his human rights.
Held: The later Act had not revoked the earlier, and the Secretary could act under either and without infringing his human rights, and he had no duty to give exceptional leave to remain.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 2(1), 30, Mental Health Act 1983 86, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88647

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Holub and Another: CA 13 Feb 2001

The right to education of a child under Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, was not breached by an order enforcing immigration control with the effect of taking away from a good school a child who had become settled there. The Convention gave no right to an education in any particular country, and it would be invidious to try to compare different education systems. Non-absolute human rights are not engaged when a country deals with such issues as immigration control. Having taken account of the child’s education in making his decision, that decision could not be faulted for this reason.

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-2001

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights, Education

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88652

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Isiko and Another: CA 20 Feb 2001

It was not an infringement of the human rights of a family to deport a husband who had no permission to reside in the UK, even though the deportee’s wife had a child by an earlier relationship who could not be separated from her former husband. Difficult choices needed to be made between the need to protect family life and the need for society to have immigration control. If a fundamental right such as the right to family life was involved, the court should expect of decision makers that they took those duties seriously, but even so, should defer to the considered policies made by a democratically elected parliament.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights, Family

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88636

Kesse v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 21 Mar 2001

The immigration appeal tribunal has the power to order the attendance of witnesses before it even against the wishes of the parties to the hearing. The tribunal sought evidence from a lady whose marriage to the applicant was said to be the basis of the fraudulent obtaining of leave to remain in the UK. As an appellate tribunal, the IAT had power under the rules.

Citations:

Times 21-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Immigration (Procedure) Rules 1984 (1984 No 2041) 27(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.82754

Harakal v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 12 Jul 2001

The applicant sought asylum being a Czech national. As a Roma, he had been subject to racist attacks by skinheads. He did not report these attacks to the police believing that they were infiltrated by the same gangs. The secretary refused his application, but the special adjudicator accepted that their was sufficient evidence of persecution. On appeal the Secretary of State succeeded, arguing that his evidence was subject to criticism. The applicant again appealed. The court had not allowed for the fact that the secretary had not challenged the finding on the evidence, and the decision of the adjudicator stood.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Jul-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81225

Frantisek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 12 Jun 2001

The applicant for asylum claimed that he had been persecuted by means of a violent and severe attack on his pregnant wife. He appealed against the refusal of asylum, and the court held that severe acts of violence against the wife or other close family member of an applicant was capable of being serious ill-treatment sufficient to found a claim of persecution.

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.80662

UG (Nepal) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 2 Feb 2012

Appeal about the circumstances in which the adult dependants of Gurkhas who have been granted indefinite leave to enter the UK as a Gurkha discharged from the British Army may themselves be granted indefinite leave to remain in order to settle in this country within the family unit. Whilst therefore the case inevitably raises issues connected with this country’s unquestioned debt of gratitude for generations of loyal and distinguished service by the Gurkhas, it is important to note from the outset that the arrangements under consideration are equally applicable to the dependants of all foreign and commonwealth nationals who seek settlement in the UK on discharge from HM Forces.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tomlinson

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Armed Forces

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.450535

Regina on the Application of IO v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2596 (Admin)

Cited by:

Cited – Rostami, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 7-Aug-2009
The claimant had been detained for nearly three years while his application for asylum was determined. He sought judicial review, saying that the detention was unlawful. Whilst in detention he had self harmed and said: ‘I will stay in detention for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.375101

Carcabuk v Secretary of State for the Home Department: IAT 18 May 2000

Collins J considered the circumstances under which a party could withdraw a concession previously given. Collins J said: ‘It is in our judgment important to identify the precise nature of any so-called concession. If it is of fact . . the adjudicator should not go behind it. Accordingly, if facts are agreed, the adjudicator should accept whatever is agreed. Equally, if a concession is clearly made by a HOPO that an appellant is telling the truth either generally or on specific matters, the adjudicator may raise with the HOPO his doubts whether the concession as appropriate but, if it is maintained, he should accept it. But there is all the difference in the world between a concession and a failure to challenge. The former will bind the adjudicator, the latter will not. Furthermore, any concession can be withdrawn so that, for example, the case before the Tribunal can be presented in a different way to that before the adjudicator. It is open to a HOPO to withdraw a concession made before an adjudicator before the hearing is concluded, but the appellant must be given a proper opportunity to deal with the new case against him and unless there is good reason for the withdrawal such as the discovery of fresh material we doubt that the adjudicator should permit any adjournment which such withdrawal would be likely to necessitate . .
We can summarise the position as follows:- . .
(3) If the HOPO wishes to withdraw any concession made: in a refusal letter or explanatory statement, he must inform the appellant or his advisor as soon as possible and it will be for the adjudicator to decide if an application for an adjournment to enable the new case to be met is made, whether to grant it. If he does not, the concession will stand . .
(6) A concession can be withdrawn but, if a HOPO seeks to do this, the adjudicator must be satisfied that the appellant will not be prejudiced if the hearing continues and should only allow an adjournment if persuaded that there was good reason to have made and to withdraw the concession’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Unreported, 18 May 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.372329

MO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 10 Apr 2008

The claimant appealed refusal of his claim of a right to remain in the UK working as a postgraduate doctor. The rules had changed and there were no transtional provisions.
Held: The claim was to be heard under the new provisions despite the fact that the new rules severely restricted the ability of foreign doctors to work here.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Richards

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-2008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 17-Jul-2013
The Court was asked as to: ‘the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the current points-based system of immigration control.’ The appellant’s license to sponsor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.273214

Temiz, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 13 Oct 2006

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to give him permission to stay in the United Kingdom. As a Turkish national he had absconded after being ordered to be removed, and had since gone into business here.
Held: The effect of the protocol was to prevent a member state bringing in any restriction on immigration from Turkey which was more severe than already existed. The application fell to be considered under the former rules. His activities had been unlawful, and he could not take the benefit of the Association agreement if the ability to meet the pre 1973 requirements was met by establishing a business in breach of his conditions of admission. The review was rejected.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2006, [2006] EWHC 2450 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussels additional Protocol of November 23 1970, European Community and Republic of Turkey Association Agreement

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tum, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Dari v Same CA 24-May-2004
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Eran Abatay and Others, Nadi Sahin v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ECJ 21-Oct-2003
Europa EEC-Turkey Association – Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 – Abolition of restrictions on the freedom of movement for workers, on the freedom of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.245360

AW, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon; A D Y v London Borough of Hackney and Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 16 Dec 2005

Judges:

Mr Justice Lloyd Jones

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2950 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Croydon and Another v AW, A and Y, Regina (on the Application of) CA 4-Apr-2007
The authority appealed a finding that it was responsible to provide support to an able bodied asylum seeker who was destitute but whose human rights would be infringed by the absence of support.
Held: Where the asylum seeker was able bodied, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.239267

Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 2 Dec 2002

The Claimant was a Tamil from Sri Lanka claiming asylum. He was married in 1991; his wife was also Tamil. In 1995 his claim for asylum in Germany failed. What then happened was disputed. The Claimant said that he voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka, where he was imprisoned and tortured; that his wife procured his release, following which he fled to the UK. The Secretary of State believes that the Claimant never left Germany, but simply went to ground before illegally and clandestinely entering the UK in 1998. After his arrest as an illegal entrant he claimed asylum. At that time, his asylum claim in Germany was still subject to an appeal to the German courts. When he arrived in the UK, he concealed the fact that he had previously applied for asylum in Germany or anywhere else; that he had done so was discovered when fingerprints were taken. The Home Secretary sought to remove him to Germany as a safe third country. Judicial review proceedings were begun on his behalf, but were held in abeyance pending the appeals in Adan and Aitsegeur [2001] 2 AC 477 and Yogathas [2002] UKHL 41 [2002] 4 All ER 785.
In August 2001, the Claimant’s wife entered this country and claimed asylum. In November 2001, the Home Secretary certified the Claimant’s asylum claim under section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In January 2002, the Claimant’s solicitors withdrew the first judicial review claim on account of judicial decisions on third country certification (in the case of Yogathas that of the Court of Appeal).’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2595

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur HL 20-Dec-2000
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar CA 19-Jun-2003
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
See Also – Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Dec-2003
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.236523

Regina v Kishietine: CACD 29 Nov 2004

The defendant had been convicted of providing false information to the immigration authorities when applying for asylum. She appealed her sentence of nine months imprisonment.
Held: She had been raped and beaten by soldiers in her own country and fled to England. She only claimed asylum three months after arriving, but said that she had arrived the day before. The fact that her claim might be genuine and succeed was not relevant. It was a matter for the immigration authorities. The sentence was appropriate.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Sir Ian Kennedy

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-2004

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 24A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Immigration

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.221441

Musgrove v Toy: HL 1891

There is no right of entry into the country in common law for a person fleeing persecution in his own country.

Citations:

[1891] AC 272

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Immigration

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220649

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 from a safe third country, Kenya. This decision was challenged on the basis that Kenya was not safe – that in fact he would almost certainly be removed to Uganda. The Minister of State rejected this submission on the grounds that: ‘It is the respondent’s belief that Kenya as a signatory to the United Nation’s Convention relating to the status of refugees would not knowingly remove a Uganda citizen to Uganda if there was reason to believe he would be persecuted there. ‘
Held: ‘I cannot escape the conclusion that the Secretary of State’s decision in relation to the appellant were taken on the basis of a confidence in Kenya’s performance of its obligation under the Convention which is now shown to have been, at least to some extent, misplaced . . The fact of such breaches must be very relevant to any assessment of the danger that the appellant, if returned to Kenya, would be sent home to Uganda. Since the decision of the Secretary of State appears to have been made without taking that fact into account, they cannot, in my opinion, now stand. ‘ and ‘The Court must, I think, be entitled to subject an administrative decision to the more rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines. The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual’s right to life and when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant’s life at risk, the basis of the decision must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny. ‘

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1987] AC 514

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.219249

Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada v Cain: PC 1906

Lord Atkinson said: ‘One of the rights possessed by the supreme power in every State is the right to refuse to permit an alien to enter that State, to annex what conditions it pleases to the permission to enter it and to expel or deport from the State, at pleasure, even a friendly alien, especially if it considers his presence in the State opposed to its peace, order, and good government, or to its social or material interests: Vattel, Law of Nations, book 1, s.231; book 2, s.125’

Judges:

Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1906] AC 542

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.187706

Alam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 16 Nov 2020

Two appeals raising the question of what is required ‘to give notice in writing of’ a decision curtailing a person’s leave to remain in the United Kingdom. In each appeal the appellant contends that he was not given notice of the curtailment decision, and that in consequence the power of the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the SSHD’), to curtail their leave was not validly exercised. The SSHD contends that, as she has done all that is required of her under the relevant legislation, it is for the appellants to prove that they were not given notice, and they have no real prospect of doing so.

Judges:

Lord Justice Floyd

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1527

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.656006

In re Mohamed Arif (An Infant): CA 1968

Russell LJ said: ‘When an infant becomes a ward of court, control over the person of the infant is vested in the judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court. It is for the judge to say by order from time to time where the ward is to reside and with whom, and disobedience to such an order is contempt of court by anyone who knowingly breaches or is party to a breach of that order. Moreover, even without any judge’s order forbidding it, it is a contempt to remove a ward outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. It is, however, quite obvious that there are circumstances in which control over the person of a ward is not committed or referred to the judge but is by the law of England committed or referred to another agency or person. As a simple illustration, it could not be contended that the judge would have any jurisdiction to order that a criminal ward be transferred from place of detention A to place of detention B, however much of the medical evidence before the judge suggested that the ward would be in better health at place of detention B. The reason is that the jurisdiction of the judge over the person of the ward is necessarily restricted by the fact that the law has given that aspect of control over the ward’s person exclusively to another agency. Similarly, the judge would have no right to complain of or countermand a lawful posting overseas of a ward who was in the armed forces. The law refers the military control of the ward to the military authorities. Similarly, any lawful deportation order affecting a ward must be outside the normal position which I have mentioned already, that a ward must not leave the jurisdiction without permission of the judge; indeed, it would override any existing express order of the judge in the wardship proceedings that the infant was not to depart from the jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1968] Ch 643

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588164

Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): 3 Sep 2002

FCC (Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division) – Application by Pushpanathan for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division that he was not a Convention refugee. Pushpanathan was a Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka. He alleged that he was persecuted on the basis of his political opinions and was detained after participating in a political demonstration. While in Canada, Pushpanathan was convicted of conspiracy to traffic heroine along with five other Tamils and served over two years in a federal penitentiary. At his first hearing, the Refugee Division found that the conviction excluded him from refugee status because it was contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. On appeal, the court ordered a new hearing. At the second hearing, the Refugee Division found that Pushpanathan was excluded from refugee protection on the basis of his involvement in crimes against humanity and terrorist activities associated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
HELD: Application dismissed. The standard of review was less than a balance of probabilities. The Refugee Division correctly concluded that the Liberation Tigers was a terrorist organization. Through the trafficking of narcotics, Pushpanathan was complicit in supporting the Liberation Tigers and demonstrated a personal knowing participation and common purpose with the Tigers.

Judges:

Blais J

Citations:

[2002] FCJ No 1207, 2002 FCT 867

Links:

UNCHR

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Nov-2012
The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.470722

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Rajinder Kaur: CA 1987

The court considered a provision requiring refusal of leave to enter if there was no entry clearance.
Held: Such a mandatory rule was intra vires, the Secretary of State retaining a discretion outside the 1971 Act. Glidewell LJ said: ‘immigration was formerly covered by the royal prerogative and it was a matter which lay entirely within the exercise of that prerogative. Much of the prerogative powers vested in the Crown in this field have now been superseded by a statute but there remains-and this is what the royal prerogative is-a residual power in the Crown, through Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Home Affairs, to exercise such residual power as is necessary for the proper control of immigration.
In my view, the exercise of discretion in relation to leave to enter outside the rules is an exercise of the remaining part of that prerogative power’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, Schiemann J

Citations:

[1987] Imm AR 278

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Immigration, Constitutional

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.462963