Category: Immigration

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Vitale; Regina v Same Ex Parte Do Amaral: QBD 18 Apr 1995

A European Union citizen’s right to stay in UK is not unqualified, he must expect to have to seek or find work. The decision of the Home Secretary could be judicially reviewed and ‘in the course of his appeal before the Social Security Appeal Tribunal Mr. Vitale will be able to argue against the finding that he was not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.’

Judges:

Judge J

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-1995, [1995] All ER (EC) 946

Statutes:

ECTreaty 8a

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Vitale CA 26-Jan-1996
The appellant, who was an Italian citizen, claimed that Article 8(a) conferred an unlimited right to reside in the United Kingdom.
Held: The court rejected that argument. Staughton LJ said that it was clear that Article 8(a) could not be taken . .
Cited – Chief Adjudication Officer v Wolke; Remelien v Secretary of State for Social Security HL 13-Nov-1997
The claimant was an EC national who had become resident here but was not seeking work, since she cared for her children. The Secretary of State said that since she was not seeking work, she was not entitled to remain and should make arrangements to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87760

Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar: CA 25 Jun 1996

Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within s59.
Held: Such destitution was capable of being a reason within the Act, and the appeal against refusal of the assistance was allowed. Deprivation of asylum seekers of benefits made them vulnerable and in housing need. Case law suggested that the ejusdem generis rule should not be applied in construing the section so as to restrict its application.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Waite, Neill LJJ

Citations:

Times 10-Jul-1996, Independent 03-Jul-1996, [1996] 29 HLR 147

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 59(1)(c), Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council Ex Parte Kihara; Regina v Similar QBD 1-May-1996
The words ‘other special reason’ for housing need within the section are to be to be read narrowly. The section was to be read as a whole and was not indended to cover impecuniosity through the denial of benefits. . .
Doubted – Ortiz v City of Westminster CA 1994
The applicant was a twenty four year old woman with a history of drug addiction and alcoholism. There was in fact suitable hostel accommodation available which had been offered to the applicant at the relevant time and it was hard to see why she . .
Approved – Wilson v Nithsdale District Council 1992
An eighteen year old girl had been sexually assaulted, was unable to return home, had been expelled from a hostel for suspected theft and was said to be at risk of further sexual assault if not provided with suitable accommodation. She sought . .

Cited by:

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 – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Housing

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87058

Assah: 1994

The adjudicator had accepted at least a substantial part of the appellant’s evidence, whereas the IAT, without the benefit of hearing it, had concluded that none of the accounts which he had put forward in relation to past material events was true.
Held: The Tribunal should reverse the findings of fact of a Special Adjudicator only if they are unsustainable or perverse, but ‘In appropriate circumstances and where a finding was unsustainable the Tribunal was entitled to reverse an adjudicator’s finding on primary facts.’ That did not apply in this case.

Citations:

[1994] Imm AR 519

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mpembele CA 20-Feb-1997
The Secretary of State sought leave to appeal reversal of his refusal to grant the applicant asylum. The applicant had fled Angola in several years before and claimed he would be in danger of political violence if returned. The secretary of state . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Home Department v Ravichandran CA 6-Jun-1997
Application for leave to appeal granted.
Held: This was a case where the relationship of the Tribunal to the Special Adjudicator can and should be considered. ‘I have indicated some of the difficulties which may arise. There is no doubt that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180979

MB (Internal Relocation – Burden of Proof) Albania: UTIAC 30 Jul 2019

The burden of proof remains on the appellant, where the respondent has identified the location to which it is asserted they could relocate, to prove why that location would be unduly harsh, in line with AMM and others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia CG [2011] UKUT 445 (IAC), but within that burden, the evaluation exercise should be holistic. An holistic approach to such an assessment is consistent with the balance-sheet approach endorsed later in SSHD v SC (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 2112, at paragraphs [40] and [41]. MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland (Common European Asylum System – Directive 2004/83/EC) Case C-277/11 does not impose a burden on the respondent or result in a formal sharing of the burden of proof, but merely confirms a duty of cooperation at the stage of assessment, for example the production of the country information reports.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 392 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.650794

TT (Vietnam) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 27 Feb 2019

Appeal raising two discrete matters: albeit both arise in the context of human trafficking. The first is whether the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to certify the appellant’s asylum claim as clearly unfounded. The second is whether the appellant is entitled to substantive damages in respect of his immigration detention

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 248

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other, Human Rights

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634076

Joint Council for The Welfare of Immigrants, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 1 Mar 2019

The claimants challenged as discriminatory the statutory requirement for landlords to verify the immigration status of potential tenants and land occupiers.
Held: The challenge succeeded.

Judges:

Martin Spencer

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 452 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 4, Immigration Act 2014 20-37, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Equality Act 2010 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Immigration, Discrimination

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634219

W, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 15 Feb 2019

Claims for judicial review of two decisions of the Secretary of State to grant the Claimant, restricted leave to remain. The Claimant is an Algerian national who had been held by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to constitute a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom. This holding was made in the light of factual findings in relation to the Claimant’s involvement as a secondary party in the ‘ricin’ plot involving Kamel Bourgass and Mohammed Meguerba.

Judges:

Dingemans J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 254 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633417

H v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Aug 2018

The court was asked whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) breached his legal duties to provide support and assistance for the Claimant who had been trafficked as a youngster into the UK. The Claimant also alleges that the treatment he received is illustrative of systemic failings in the treatment of victims of trafficking such that the Court should grant declaratory relief.
Held: There had been failings an errors, but these had now been acknowledged and decision

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2191 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621158

BA and Another v JA and Others (Female Genital Mutilation Protection Orders and Immigration Appeals): FD 3 Jul 2018

Appeal from refusal of asylum claims – Nigerian family – parents’ fear of FGM for their daughters.
Held: Refused.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1754 (Fam), [2018] 4 WLR 105, [2018] WLR(D) 426

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621054

Matthews, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 1 Aug 2018

Application for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to issue the Claimant a passport on the basis that she was not satisfied that the Claimant is a British citizen.

Judges:

David Elvin QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2026 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620668

State Secretary for Security and Justice v C and Others: ECJ 5 Jul 2018

(Order)
Reference for a preliminary ruling – urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Common procedures for the grant and withdrawal of international protection – Directive 2013/32 / EU – Article 46 (6) and (8) – Application of manifestly unfounded international protection – Right to an effective remedy – Authorization to remain in the territory of a Member State – Directive 2008/115 / EC – Articles 2, 3 and 15 – Illegal stay – Detention

Citations:

C-269/18, [2018] EUECJ C-269/18PPU – CO, ECLI:EU:C:2018:544

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620003

AT v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 4 Oct 2017

Judicial review application on behalf of AT, FF and BT against the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the lawfulness of her decisions, in particular with respect to the detention and removal of the first claimant, AT.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3210 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619954

Macastena v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 5 Jul 2018

This appeal raises the question whether time spent by a man in a durable relationship with a woman who is an EEA national with a permanent right of residence in the United Kingdom can be added to subsequent time as a spouse to meet the requirement of 5 years continuous lawful residence before the man can himself acquire a permanent right of residence. The answer is that time so spent cannot be added unless the Secretary of State for the Home Department has (or perhaps ought to have) issued the man with a residence card as an ‘extended family member’, pursuant to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulatio ns 2006 (‘the 2006 Regulations’). The answer to this question is important for foreign criminals with ordinary rights of residence who can only be deported ‘on grounds of public policy or security’; if, however, they have a permanent right of residence they can only be deported on ‘serious grounds of public policy or security’.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1558

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619391

Al Enein, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jun 2018

The Claimant challenged the decision of the Defendant not to reconsider an earlier decision refusing the Claimant’s application for naturalisation as a British citizen on the basis that the Claimant had worked illegally in the United Kingdom during time and had remained in the UK without leave between those dates and so was not compliant with UK immigration laws.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1615 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618991

Bajratari v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CANI 15 Dec 2017

Requests to the ECJ to provide a preliminary ruling on an issue of EU law relating to the status of a non-EU citizen claiming a derivative right of residence in the United Kingdom relying on the EU citizenship status of her child.

Citations:

[2017] NICA 74

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Immigration, European

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618455

Baraka, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 20 Jun 2018

The Claimant seeks to challenge the failure of the Defendant to provide him with accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 so as to enable his release on bail from immigration detention.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1549 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Immigration

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618414

Connell, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 Jun 2018

This appeal concerns the relationship between the deportation provisions of the UK 2007 Act, the provisions relating to deportation of EEA nationals contained in the 2006 Regulations, and the Secretary of State’s policy relating to deportation of Irish nationals.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1329

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Borders Act 2007, Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618375

Omar and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 28 Mar 2018

Six claimants sought judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the Defendant’s decision (i) to remove them to another EU member state for the purposes of examining their asylum claims and (ii) to detain them for the purposes of their removal.

Judges:

Lambert J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 689 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 287

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Transfer for Determination of an Application for International Protection (Detention) (Significant Risk of Absconding Criteria) Regulations 2017

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618098

Yussuf (Meaning of ‘Liable To Deportation’) Somalia: UTIAC 9 Mar 2018

Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 impliedly amends section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 by (a) removing the function of the Secretary of State of deeming a person’s deportation to be conducive to the public good, in the case of a foreign criminal within the meaning of the 2007 Act; and (b) substituting an automatic ‘deeming’ provision in such a case. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 make this plain. To that extent Ali (section 6 – liable to deportation) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 250 (IAC) is wrongly decided.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 117 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617023

Williams (Scope of ‘Liable To Deportation’) Nigeria: UTIAC 2 Mar 2018

(1) A person who has been deported under a deportation order that remains in force is a person who is liable to deportation within the meaning of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and is therefore unable to bring himself within section 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
(2) By the same token, the fact that such a person has been deported does not mean he or she is thereby able to avoid the application of the considerations listed in section 117C.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 116 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617022

Ahmad (Scope of Appeals) Pakistan: UTIAC 23 Jan 2018

(1) A notice of removal window (Form RED.0004 (fresh)) is not an EEA decision for the purposes of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. The notice cannot accordingly be appealed under those Regulations. Even if it could constitute a decision, the notice of removal window will constitute an EEA decision only if it concerns a person’s removal from the United Kingdom under regulation 19 of those Regulations.
(2) Section 85(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 does not enable the Tribunal hearing an appeal in the United Kingdom to treat that appeal as including an appeal which has been certified under section 94 as clearly unfounded and which, as a result, can be brought only once the appellant is outside the United Kingdom.
(3) A statement made by an appellant under section 120 of the 2002 Act in response to a One-Stop notice is a statement made to the Secretary of State or an Immigration Officer. Accordingly, a statement made only in a ground of appeal to the Tribunal is not a statement under that section.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 84 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617013

Baihinga (R 22; Human Rights Appeal: Requirements) Sierra Leone: UTIAC 5 Feb 2018

1. The scope for issuing a notice under rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (circumstances in which the Tribunal may not accept a notice of appeal) is limited. A rule 22 notice may be issued at the stage where the First-tier Tribunal scrutinises a notice of appeal as soon as practicable after it has been given. Where no rule 22 notice is issued at that stage and the matter proceeds to a hearing, the resulting decision of the First-tier Tribunal may be challenged on appeal to the Upper Tribunal, rather than by judicial review (JH (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 78; Practice Statement 3).
2. An application for leave or entry clearance may constitute a human rights claim, even if the applicant does not, in terms, raise human rights. In cases not covered by the respondent’s guidance (whereby certain applications under the immigration rules will be treated as human rights claims), the application will constitute a human rights claim if, on the totality of the information supplied, the applicant is advancing a case which requires the caseworker to consider whether a discretionary decision under the rules needs to be taken by reference to ECHR issues (eg Article 8) or requires the caseworker to look beyond the rules and decide, if they are not satisfied, whether an Article 8 case is nevertheless being advanced.
3. The issue of whether a human rights claim has been refused must be judged by reference to the decision said to constitute the refusal. An entry clearance manager’s decision, in response to a notice of appeal, cannot, for this purpose, be part of the decision of the entry clearance officer.
4. A person who has not made an application which constitutes a human rights claim cannot re-characterise that application by raising human rights issues in her grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 90 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617017

MT and ET (Child’s Best Interests; Ex Tempore Pilot) Nigeria: UTIAC 1 Feb 2018

1. A very young child, who has not started school or who has only recently done so, will have difficulty in establishing that her Article 8 private and family life has a material element, which lies outside her need to live with her parent or parents, wherever that may be. This position, however, changes over time, with the result that an assessment of best interests must adopt a correspondingly wider focus, examining the child’s position in the wider world, of which school will usually be an important part.
2. The giving of ex tempore decisions furthers the aim of dealing with immigration and asylum appeals as efficiently as possible. But any formal attempt to identify and manage in advance those cases which may lend themselves to the giving of ex tempore decisions needs careful handling; not least to ensure procedural fairness.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 88 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617019

Quaidoo (New Matter: Procedure/Process) Ghana: UTIAC 1 Feb 2018

1. If, at a hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that a matter which an appellant wishes to raise is a new matter, which by reason of section 85(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Tribunal may not consider unless the Secretary of State has given consent, and, in pursuance of the Secretary of State’s Guidance, her representative applies for an adjournment for further time to consider whether to give such consent, then it will generally be appropriate to grant such an adjournment, rather than proceed without consideration of the new matter
2. If an appellant considers that the decision of the respondent not to consent to the consideration of a new matter is unlawful, either by reference to the respondent’s guidance or otherwise, the appropriate remedy is a challenge by way of judicial review.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 87 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617020

Charles (Human Rights Appeal: Scope) Grenada: UTIAC 1 Feb 2018

(i) A human rights appeal under section 82(1)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘NIAA 2002’) can be determined only through the provisions of the ECHR; usually Article 8.
(ii) A person whose human rights claim turns on Article 8 will not be able to advance any criticism of the Secretary of State’s decision making under the Immigration Acts, including the immigration rules, unless the circumstances engage Article 8(2).
(iii) Following the amendments to ss.82, 85 and 86 of NIAA 2002 by the Immigration Act 2014, it is no longer possible for the Tribunal to allow an appeal on the ground that a decision is not in accordance with the law. To this extent, Greenwood No. 2 (para 398 considered) [2015] UKUT 629 (IAC) should no longer be followed.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 89 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617018

Elsakhawy (Immigration Officers: Pace) Egypt: UTIAC 30 Jan 2018

1. The respondent’s instructions and guidance to immigration officers correctly reflect the operation of sections 66 and 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and of the Immigration (PACE Codes of Practice) Direction 2013, in drawing a distinction between administrative enquiries and formal criminal enquiries. The fact that immigration officers have powers of investigation, administrative arrest and criminal arrest does not require them to follow the PACE codes of practice concerning the giving of a ‘criminal’ caution, when questioning a person whom they reasonably suspect of entering into a marriage of convenience, in circumstances where the investigation is merely into whether an administrative breach has occurred.
2. Section 78 of PACE, which gives a criminal court power to refuse to allow evidence which, if admitted, would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it, has little to say about the task facing a Tribunal, in civil proceedings under the EEA Regulations.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 86 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617015

Watson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: UTIAC 5 Apr 2018

Extant Appeal: S94B Challenge: Forum – (1) Where an appellant’s appeal has been certified under section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the appellant has been removed from the United Kingdom pursuant to that certificate, the First-tier Tribunal is the forum for determining whether, in all the circumstances, the appeal can lawfully be decided, without the appellant being physically present in the United Kingdom. The First-tier Tribunal is under a continuing duty to monitor the position, to ensure that the right to a fair hearing is not abrogated. In doing so, the First-tier Tribunal can be expected to apply the step-by-step approach identified in AJ (s 94B: Kiarie and Byndloss questions) Nigeria [2018] UKUT 00115 (IAC).
(2) If the First-tier Tribunal stays the appeal proceedings because it concludes that they cannot progress save in a manner which breaches the procedural rights safeguarded by Article 8, then it is anticipated the Secretary of State will promptly take the necessary action to rectify this position. If this does not happen, then an application for judicial review can be made to the Upper Tribunal to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision and compel him to facilitate the appellant’s return.
(3) If the First-tier Tribunal decides that the appeal process is Article 8 compliant, the Tribunal’s substantive decision will be susceptible to challenge, on appeal to the Upper Tribunal, on the ground that the Tribunal was wrong so to conclude.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 165 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617024

AS (Safety of Kabul) Afghanistan CG: UTIAC 28 Mar 2018

Risk on return to Kabul from the Taliban
(i) A person who is of lower-level interest for the Taliban (i.e. not a senior government or security services official, or a spy) is not at real risk of persecution from the Taliban in Kabul.
Internal relocation to Kabul
(ii) Having regard to the security and humanitarian situation in Kabul as well as the difficulties faced by the population living there (primarily the urban poor but also IDPs and other returnees, which are not dissimilar to the conditions faced throughout may other parts of Afghanistan); it will not, in general be unreasonable or unduly harsh for a single adult male in good health to relocate to Kabul even if he does not have any specific connections or support network in Kabul.
(iii) However, the particular circumstances of an individual applicant must be taken into account in the context of conditions in the place of relocation, including a person’s age, nature and quality of support network/connections with Kabul/Afghanistan, their physical and mental health, and their language, education and vocational skills when determining whether a person falls within the general position set out above.
(iv) A person with a support network or specific connections in Kabul is likely to be in a more advantageous position on return, which may counter a particular vulnerability of an individual on return.
(v) Although Kabul suffered the highest number of civilian casualties (in the latest UNAMA figures from 2017) and the number of security incidents is increasing, the proportion of the population directly affected by the security situation is tiny. The current security situation in Kabul is not at such a level as to render internal relocation unreasonable or unduly harsh.
Previous Country Guidance
(vi) The country guidance in AK (Article 15(c)) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 163 (IAC) in relation to Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive remains unaffected by this decision.
(vii) The country guidance in AK (Article 15(c)) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 163 (IAC) in relation to the (un)reasonableness of internal relocation to Kabul (and other potential places of internal relocation) for certain categories of women remains unaffected by this decision.
(viii) The country guidance in AA (unattended children) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 16 (IAC) also remains unaffected by this decision.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 118 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617021

BA (Deprivation of Citizenship: Appeals) Ghana: UTIAC 24 Jan 2018

(1) In an appeal under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Tribunal must first establish whether the relevant condition precedent in section 40(2) or (3) exists for the exercise of the Secretary of State’s discretion to deprive a person (P) of British citizenship.
(2) In a section 40(2) case, the fact that the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good is to be given very significant weight and will almost inevitably be determinative of that issue.
(3) In a section 40(3) case, the Tribunal must establish whether one or more of the means described in subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c) were used by P in order to obtain British citizenship. As held in Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles) [2017] UKUT 196 (IAC) the deception must have motivated the acquisition of that citizenship.
(4) In both section 40(2) and (3) cases, the fact that the Secretary of State has decided in the exercise of her discretion to deprive P of British citizenship will in practice mean the Tribunal can allow P’s appeal only if satisfied that the reasonably foreseeable consequence of deprivation would violate the obligations of the United Kingdom government under the Human Rights Act 1998 and/or that there is some exceptional feature of the case which means the discretion in the subsection concerned should be exercised differently.
(5) As can be seen from AB (British citizenship: deprivation: Deliallisi considered) (Nigeria) [2016] UKUT 451 (IAC), the stronger P’s case appears to the Tribunal to be for resisting any future (post-deprivation) removal on ECHR grounds, the less likely it will be that P’s removal from the United Kingdom will be one of the foreseeable consequences of deprivation.
(6) The appeal is to be determined by reference to the evidence adduced to the Tribunal, whether or not the same evidence was before the Secretary of State when she made her decision to deprive.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 85 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617014

Joshi and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 May 2018

The appeal raises two issues: first, whether the application made by the first appellant was properly characterised as a human rights claim for the purposes of s.94(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and second whether the decision on the application was void or nullified on the grounds of illegality?

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616326