Category: Immigration

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

AB and DM (Risk Categories Reviewed, Tutsis Added) Democratic Republic of Congo CG: IAT 21 Jul 2005

IAT The Tribunal broadly confirms the list of risk categories identified in M, VL and subsequent CG cases but finds that in view of the increase in anti-Rwandan feeling, Tutsis or those suspected of being Tutsi are at risk by reason of being associated with Rwandans. Essentially, the risk categories are those with an ethnic, political or military profile in opposition to the government. The assessment of risk in an individual case will depend upon a careful analysis of that individual’s origins, background and profile.

Citations:

[2005] UKIAT 00118

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.229370

Youssef v Secretary of State for The Home Departmen: CA 26 Apr 2018

The Respondent argued that each Appellant was properly excluded from reliance on (and the benefit of) the United Nations Refugee Convention 1951 as their differing activities were sufficient to satisfy the test in Article 1F(c) of the Convention: each ‘has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 933, [2018] WLR(D) 259

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.614913

Ryanair Ltd v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 24 Apr 2018

The airline complained of the imposition on it of liability carrying passengers without an entry visa. He had produced a residence card for Austria. The appeal failed. Under the Directive, a valid card must bear the words ‘Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen’ or a translated version. A card of the sort produced might go toward establishing the necessary right, but was not itself sufficient.

Judges:

King, Newey LJJ, Macdonald J

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 899, [2018] WLR(D) 250

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Directive 2004/38/EC 5(2), Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Transport

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.614908

Mahdi: ECJ 5 Jun 2014

ECJ (Judgment Of The Court) Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons – Directive 2008/115/EC – Return of third-country nationals residing – Article 15 – Retention – Extension of detention – Obligations of the administrative authority or Judicial – Judicial review – Lack of identity documents of a national of a third country – Obstacles to the implementation of the expulsion decision – Refusal of the embassy of the country concerned to issue an identity document to the return of the citizen of this country – Risk of leakage – Reasonable Perspective removal – Lack of cooperation – Possible Obligation of the Member State concerned to issue a temporary document on the status of the person

Judges:

Ilesic P

Citations:

C-146/14, [2014] EUECJ C-146/14, ECLI: EU: C: 2014:919

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2008/115/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.526311

XX (PJAK – Sur Place Activities – Facebook) Iran CG: UTIAC 20 Jan 2022

Facebook – Iran – Country Guidance – Anonymity UT

The cases of BA (Demonstrators in Britain – risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC); SSH and HR (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) Iran CG [2016] UKUT 308 (IAC); and HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 continue accurately to reflect the situation for returnees to Iran. That guidance is hereby supplemented on the issue of risk on return arising from a person’s social media use (in particular, Facebook) and surveillance of that person by the authorities in Iran.
Surveillance
1) There is a disparity between, on the one hand, the Iranian state’s claims as to what it has been, or is, able to do to control or access the electronic data of its citizens who are in Iran or outside it; and on the other, its actual capabilities and extent of its actions. There is a stark gap in the evidence, beyond assertions by the Iranian government that Facebook accounts have been hacked and are being monitored. The evidence fails to show it is reasonably likely that the Iranian authorities are able to monitor, on a large scale, Facebook accounts. More focussed, ad hoc searches will necessarily be more labour-intensive and are therefore confined to individuals who are of significant adverse interest. The risk that an individual is targeted will be a nuanced one. Whose Facebook accounts will be targeted, before they are deleted, will depend on a person’s existing profile and where they fit onto a ‘social graph;’ and the extent to which they or their social network may have their Facebook material accessed.
2) The likelihood of Facebook material being available to the Iranian authorities is affected by whether the person is or has been at any material time a person of significant interest, because if so, they are, in general, reasonably likely to have been the subject of targeted Facebook surveillance. In the case of such a person, this would mean that any additional risks that have arisen by creating a Facebook account containing material critical of, or otherwise inimical to, the Iranian authorities would not be mitigated by the closure of that account, as there is a real risk that the person would already have been the subject of targeted on-line surveillance, which is likely to have made the material known.
3) Where an Iranian national of any age returns to Iran, the fact of them not having a Facebook account, or having deleted an account, will not as such raise suspicions or concerns on the part of Iranian authorities.
4) A returnee from the UK to Iran who requires a laissez-passer or an emergency travel document (ETD) needs to complete an application form and submit it to the Iranian embassy in London. They are required to provide their address and telephone number, but not an email address or details of a social media account. While social media details are not asked for, the point of applying for an ETD is likely to be the first potential ‘pinch point, ‘ referred to in AB and Others (internet activity – state of evidence) Iran [2015] UKUT 257 (IAC). It is not realistic to assume that internet searches will not be carried out until a person’s arrival in Iran. Those applicants for ETDs provide an obvious pool of people, in respect of whom basic searches (such as open internet searches) are likely to be carried out.
Guidance on Facebook more generally
5) There are several barriers to monitoring, as opposed to ad hoc searches of someone’s Facebook material. There is no evidence before us that the Facebook website itself has been ‘hacked,’ whether by the Iranian or any other government. The effectiveness of website ‘crawler’ software, such as Google, is limited, when interacting with Facebook. Someone’s name and some details may crop up on a Google search, if they still have a live Facebook account, or one that has only very recently been closed; and provided that their Facebook settings or those of their friends or groups with whom they have interactions, have public settings. Without the person’s password, those seeking to monitor Facebook accounts cannot ‘scrape’ them in the same unautomated way as other websites allow automated data extraction. A person’s email account or computer may be compromised, but it does not necessarily follow that their Facebook password account has been accessed.
6) The timely closure of an account neutralises the risk consequential on having had a ‘critical’ Facebook account, provided that someone’s Facebook account was not specifically monitored prior to closure.
Guidance on social media evidence generally
7) Social media evidence is often limited to production of printed photographs, without full disclosure in electronic format. Production of a small part of a Facebook or social media account, for example, photocopied photographs, may be of very limited evidential value in a protection claim, when such a wealth of wider information, including a person’s locations of access to Facebook and full timeline of social media activities, readily available on the ‘Download Your Information’ function of Facebook in a matter of moments, has not been disclosed.
8) It is easy for an apparent printout or electronic excerpt of an internet page to be manipulated by changing the page source data. For the same reason, where a decision maker does not have access to an actual account, purported printouts from such an account may also have very limited evidential value.
9) In deciding the issue of risk on return involving a Facebook account, a decision maker may legitimately consider whether a person will close a Facebook account and not volunteer the fact of a previously closed Facebook account, prior to application for an ETD: HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2011] AC 596. Decision makers are allowed to consider first, what a person will do to mitigate a risk of persecution, and second, the reason for their actions. It is difficult to see circumstances in which the deletion of a Facebook account could equate to persecution, as there is no fundamental right protected by the Refugee Convention to have access to a particular social media platform, as opposed to the right to political neutrality. Whether such an inquiry is too speculative needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lane

Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President

Upper Tribunal Judge Keith

Citations:

[2022] UKUT 23 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.671713

Nazli and Others v Stadt Nurnberg: ECJ 10 Feb 2000

Europa EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for workers – Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council – Registration as duly belonging to the labour force of a Member State – Turkish worker detained pending trial and subsequently sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment – Expulsion on general preventive grounds.

Citations:

C-340/97, [2000] ICR I-957, [2000] EUECJ C-340/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Machado v Secretary of State for the Home Deptment CA 19-May-2005
At issue was a decision of the Home Secretary to deport on grounds of public policy a foreign national married to an EU national with a right of establishment in the United Kingdom. The substantive issue was whether the decision of the IAT to uphold . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 24-Jul-2019
V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.162239

Ziolkowski and Others v Land Berlin: ECJ 21 Dec 2011

Grand Chamber – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of permanent residence – Article 16 – Legal residence – Residence based on national law – Period of residence completed before the accession to the European Union of the State of origin of the citizen concerned

Judges:

V Skouris, P

Citations:

C-425/10, [2011] EUECJ C-424/10, C-424/10, [2012] Imm AR 421, [2014] All ER (EC) 314, [2011] ECR I-14035, [2013] 3 CMLR 37, ECLI:EU:C:2011:866, [2012] INLR 467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Order – Ziolkowski and Others v Land Berlin ECJ 6-Oct-2010
ECJ Order – REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 13 July 2010, received at the Court on 31 August 2010, in the proceedings. . .
Opinion – Ziolkowski and Others v Land Berlin ECJ 14-Sep-2011
ECJ Opinion – The right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Conditions for the acquisition of a right of permanent residence – Concept of ‘legal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze SC 19-Jun-2019
The claimant had come from Latvia to the UK in 2008, but not registered under the Worker Registration Scheme until 2010. She now sought state pension credit. The SS appealed from a judgment that it was to calculate her entitlement to include her . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 24-Jul-2019
V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.523744

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy): SC 24 Jul 2019

V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant’s appeal from the overturning of the deportation. The Supreme Court referred questions to the ECJ, and now considered the appeal in the light of the answer.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The SC had asked whether a right of permanent residence was a prerequisite of enhanced protection against expulsion pursuant to article 28(3)(a) of the Directive under which an expulsion decision ‘may not be taken against Union citizens, except if the decision is based on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by member states, if they have resided in the host member state for the previous ten years’. The CJEU held that RPR is a prerequisite for this, because article 28 provides graduated protection, and the protection reflects the individual’s integration in the host state.
In the first judgment it was found that V had not acquired a right of permanent residence in the UK before the deportation decision because the imprisonment had interrupted its acquisition.
V now argued that the SC was wrong to find he did not have RPR, because the CJEU observed that the question referred assumed that he does not have RPR, and the SC did not have the information necessary so to assess. The SS maintains that Lord Mance was correct but concedes that it will be open to V to argue that he had acquired permanent residence after the deportation decision.
The proposition the CJEU was unable to assess, namely that V does not have RPR, is not the same as Lord Mance’s conclusion, namely that Mr Vomero had not acquired RPR by 23 March 2007. The same is true of the Advocate General’s preliminary observations.
The leading authority on the significance of imprisonment in relation to the acquisition of RPR is Onuekwere where the CJEU held that periods of imprisonment could not be taken into account when calculating the length of the claimant’s residence in the UK, and theyy interrupted the continuity of such residence.
This case differs from Onuekwere in that V had more than five years of continuous legal residence before he was imprisoned. However, imprisonment for more than two years prevented him from acquiring a right of permanent residence, as would absence from the UK or being out of work for more than two years, (SSWP v Lassal and SSWP v Dias). The necessary five years’ continuous legal residence could only begin when he completed the custodial sentence, and had not been completed when the decision to deport was made.
The tribunal, on remission, must consider both whether V has acquired a right of permanent residence since the decision to deport him, and whether there still exist ‘grounds of public policy or public security’ within the meaning of article 28(1) of the Directive on the basis of which his expulsion could be justified.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President

Lord Reed, Deputy President

Lord Wilson

Lord Mance

Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 35, [2019] 1 WLR 4729, [2020] 1 All ER 287, [2020] Imm AR 97, [2019] WLR(D) 461, [2019] INLR 812, [2020] 1 WLR 3692, UKSC 2012/0226

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Feb 07 pm Video

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, Directive 2004/38/EC 27 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v FV (Italy) CA 14-Sep-2012
A right of permanent residence (‘RPR’) is a prerequisite for enhanced protection against expulsion pursuant to article 28(3)(a) of the Directive . .
See Also – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 27-Jul-2016
The respondent an Italian national had come to the UK, and married an English wife and making a family here. After the marriage broke down he committed a manslaughter, and on his release it was decided that he should be deported. He successfully . .
Cited – Onuekwere v Secretary of State For The Home Department ECJ 16-Jan-2014
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16(2) and (3) – Right of permanent residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen – Taking into consideration . .
Cited – Secretary of State For The Home Department v MG (Judgment of The Court) ECJ 16-Jan-2014
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 28(3)(a) – Protection against expulsion – Method for calculating the 10-year period – Whether periods of imprisonment are to be taken into . .
Cited – Nazli and Others v Stadt Nurnberg ECJ 10-Feb-2000
Europa EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for workers – Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council – Registration as duly belonging to the labour force of a Member . .
Cited – Cetinkaya (External Relations) ECJ 11-Nov-2004
EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for workers – Articles 7, first indent, and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council – Right of residence of the child of a Turkish worker after he has attained his majority – . .
Cited – Ziolkowski and Others v Land Berlin ECJ 21-Dec-2011
Grand Chamber – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of permanent residence – Article 16 – Legal residence – Residence based on national law – Period of residence completed before the accession to the European Union of the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Dias (European Citizenship) ECJ 21-Jul-2011
Free movement of persons – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16 – Right of permanent residence – Periods completed before the date of transposition of that directive – Legal residence – Residence based solely on a residence permit issued pursuant to . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lassal ECJ 7-Oct-2010
Reference for preliminary ruling – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16 – Right of permanent residence – Temporal application – Periods completed before the date of transposition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.640088

Onuekwere v Secretary of State For The Home Department: ECJ 16 Jan 2014

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16(2) and (3) – Right of permanent residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen – Taking into consideration of periods of imprisonment of those nationals
Held: Periods of imprisonment could not be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the length of the claimant’s residence in the UK, and interrupted the continuity of such residence.

Judges:

R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), P

Citations:

[2014] EUECJ C-378/12, [2014] Imm AR 551, [2014] WLR(D) 7, [2014] 2 CMLR 46, [2014] 1 WLR 2420, ECLI:EU:C:2014:13, [2014] CEC 1007, [2014] INLR 613, [2014] WLR(D) 7

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC 16(2)

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Onuekwere v Secretary of State For The Home Department ECJ 3-Oct-2013
ECJ Opinion – Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16 – Continuity of residence required in order to acquire the right of . .
Reference – Onuekwere (Imprisonment – Residence) Nigeria UTIAC 3-Aug-2012
Order for reference to European Court of Justice . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 27-Jul-2016
The respondent an Italian national had come to the UK, and married an English wife and making a family here. After the marriage broke down he committed a manslaughter, and on his release it was decided that he should be deported. He successfully . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 24-Jul-2019
V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.536567

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy): SC 27 Jul 2016

The respondent an Italian national had come to the UK, and married an English wife and making a family here. After the marriage broke down he committed a manslaughter, and on his release it was decided that he should be deported. He successfully appealed, and his appeal was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Held: Questions were referred to the ECJ.
A majority of the Court favours the view that possession of a right of permanent residence is not needed in order to enjoy enhanced protection under article 28(3)(a). But a minority regards the position as at the least unclear and so as requiring a reference to the Court of Justice. The Supreme Court accordingly refers to the Court of Justice the question:
‘(1) whether enhanced protection under article 28(3)(a) depends upon the possession of a right of permanent residence within article 16 and article 28(2).’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 49, UKSC 2012/0226, [2017] 1 All ER 999

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area)
Regulations 2006 19(3)(b) 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Onuekwere v Secretary of State For The Home Department ECJ 16-Jan-2014
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16(2) and (3) – Right of permanent residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen – Taking into consideration . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v FV (Italy) CA 14-Sep-2012
A right of permanent residence (‘RPR’) is a prerequisite for enhanced protection against expulsion pursuant to article 28(3)(a) of the Directive . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lassal ECJ 7-Oct-2010
Reference for preliminary ruling – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16 – Right of permanent residence – Temporal application – Periods completed before the date of transposition . .
Cited – Land Baden-Wurttemberg v Tsakouridis ECJ 23-Nov-2010
(Grand Chamber) Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 2004/38/EC – Articles 16(4) and 28(3)(a) – Union citizen born and having resided for over 30 years in the host Member State – Absences from the host Member State – Criminal convictions – . .

Cited by:

See Also – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 24-Jul-2019
V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.567608

Secretary of State for The Home Department v FV (Italy): CA 14 Sep 2012

A right of permanent residence (‘RPR’) is a prerequisite for enhanced protection against expulsion pursuant to article 28(3)(a) of the Directive

Judges:

Pill, Aikens, Rafferty LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1199, [2012] 3 CMLR 56, [2013] 1 All ER 1180, [2013] 1 WLR 3339, [2013] Imm AR 114, [2013] INLR 293

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 27-Jul-2016
The respondent an Italian national had come to the UK, and married an English wife and making a family here. After the marriage broke down he committed a manslaughter, and on his release it was decided that he should be deported. He successfully . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 24-Jul-2019
V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the . .
Reference from – B v Land Baden-Wurttemberg ECJ 17-Apr-2018
ECJ Citizenship of The European Union – Right To Move and Reside Freely – Enhanced Protection v Expulsion – Judgment – References for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the European Union – Right to move and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.464264

Secretary of State For The Home Department v MG (Judgment of The Court): ECJ 16 Jan 2014

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 28(3)(a) – Protection against expulsion – Method for calculating the 10-year period – Whether periods of imprisonment are to be taken into account

Judges:

R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), P

Citations:

C-400/12, [2014] EUECJ C-400/12, [2014] 2 CMLR 40, [2014] Imm AR 561, ECLI:EU:C:2014:9, [2014] WLR(D) 4, [2014] 1 WLR 2441

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC 28(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 24-Jul-2019
V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.520172

Adesanya, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 20 May 2016

Challenge to the defendant’s decision to detain him, deport him and to certify his human rights claim under section 94B of the 2002 Act on the basis that although the appeals process for that claim has not been exhausted, removal of the claimant to Nigeria pending the outcome of the appeal would not be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Judges:

Jarman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1165 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.566881

VB and Another (Draft Evaders and Prison Conditions : Ukraine) (CG): UTIAC 6 Mar 2017

1. At the current time it is not reasonably likely that a draft-evader avoiding conscription or mobilisation in Ukraine would face criminal or administrative proceedings for that act, although if a draft-evader did face prosecution proceedings the Criminal Code of Ukraine does provide, in Articles 335, 336 and 409, for a prison sentence for such an offence. It would be a matter for any Tribunal to consider, in the light of developing evidence, whether there were aggravating matters which might lead to imposition of an immediate custodial sentence, rather than a suspended sentence or the matter proceeding as an administrative offence and a fine being sought by a prosecutor.
2. There is a real risk of anyone being returned to Ukraine as a convicted criminal sentenced to a term of imprisonment in that country being detained on arrival, although anyone convicted in absentia would probably be entitled thereafter to a retrial in accordance with Article 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. There is a real risk that the conditions of detention and imprisonment in Ukraine would subject a person returned to be detained or imprisoned to a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 79 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.588801

NCN, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Oct 2014

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions:
‘i) The SSHD’s decision: a) to refuse to accept that the Claimant’s representations amounted to a fresh asylum/human rights claim per para 353 of the Immigration Rules and/or b) not to exercise her discretion under paragraph 353B to treat the Claimant’s case on an exceptional basis
ii) The SSHD’s decision to set removal directions in respect of the Claimant and to maintain those prior (it is alleged) to any or any proper and lawful consideration of representations. (The Claimant recognises that the order granting permission does not grant permission to challenge the decision to set removal directions in themselves. In addition the decision to set removal directions has long since passed and is now academic. If the claim fails then the SSHD will set new removal directions; if the claim succeeds the SSHD will not seek to remove pending the appeal.)
iii) The SSHD’s decision a) to refuse to accept the Claimant’s representations amounted to a fresh asylum/human rights claim, and b) the failure of the SSHD to exercise her discretion under paragraph 353B to treat the Claimant’s case on an exceptional basis.

Judges:

Clive Heaton QC HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3378 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.537733

Khan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 23 Jul 2014

Challenges to decisions of the Secretary of State as to a decision under section 10 of the the 1999 Act to remove the Claimant from the United Kingdom and which accords to the Claimant only an out-of-country right of appeal; a decision to detain him pending his removal, and a decision consequential upon the section 10 decision to deny to the Claimant a right to obtain employment.

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2494 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.535235

T, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 22 Jul 2014

The court was asked as to an issue about the proper interpretation of that part of the Immigration Rules which makes provision for foreign nationals living in the United Kingdom who become victims of domestic violence.

Judges:

Dingemans J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2453 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.535160

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v R (on The Application of) Joint Council for The Welfare of Immigrants: CA 21 Apr 2020

Judges:

Lord Justice Hickinbottom

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 542

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Department for Communities v Cox CANI 3-Aug-2021
The claimant suffered a life limiting condition, but not so that her death could be reasonably expected within six months. She complained that the resulting unavailability of PIP and UC without assessment was discriminatory as opposed to those who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.650176

MP (Protection Subsidiaire D’Une Victime De Tortures Passees): ECJ 24 Apr 2018

ECJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 4 – Directive 2004/83/EC – Article 2(e) – Eligibility for subsidiary protection – Article 15(b) – Risk of serious harm to the psychological health of the applicant if returned to the country of origin – Person who has been tortured in the country of origin

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 249, [2018] EUECJ C-353/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:276

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609319

Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 13 Apr 2018

Judges:

Michael Kent QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 800 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 218, [2018] 4 WLR 76

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 3-Jul-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608948

In re Acosta: 1985

US Board of Immigration Appeals –
Held: ‘We find the well-established doctrine of ejusdem generis, meaning literally, ‘of the same kind,’ to be most helpful in construing the phrase ‘membership in a particular social group.’ That doctrine holds that general words used in an enumeration with specific words should be construed in a manner consistent with the specific words… The other grounds of persecution in the Act and the Protocol listed in association with ‘membership in a particular social group’ are ‘persecution on account of ‘race’, ‘religion,”nationality’ and ‘political opinion.’ Each of these grounds describes persecution aimed at an immutable characteristic: a characteristic that either is beyond the power of an individual to change or is so fundamental to individual identity or conscience that it ought not to be required to be changed . . Thus, the other four grounds of persecution enumerated in the Act and the Protocol restrict refugee status to individuals who are either unable by their own actions, or as a matter of conscience should not be required, to avoid persecution. Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, we interpret the phrase ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ to mean persecution that is directed toward an individual who is a member of a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic. The shared characteristic might be an innate one such as sex, colour or kinship ties, or in some circumstances it might be a shared past experience such as former military leadership or land ownership. The particular kind of group characteristic that will qualify under this construction remains to be determined on a case-by-case basis . . By construing ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ in this manner, we preserve the concept that refuge is restricted to individuals who are either unable by their own actions, or as a matter of conscience should not be required, to avoid persecution.”

Citations:

[1985] 19 I and N 2011

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees made at Geneva in 1951

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

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 – Evans, Regina v CACD 23-Jan-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction in a case concerning the use of a false passport. The central issue was whether the appellant had a defence based upon the proposition that he was a refugee entitled to asylum in this country. He had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.570117

Regina v Governor of Richmond Remand Centre, Ex Parte Asghar: QBD 1971

The Secretary of State had detained two persons who were awaiting removal with the object that they should testify in a pending criminal trial. Lord Parker J rejected the suggestion that the detention could be justified as reasonable in these circumstances, stating: ‘it does seem to me that while a reasonable time is contemplated between the giving of the directions and the final removal, that is a reasonable time necessary to effect the physical removal’.
He considered the length of time for which the plaintiff had been detained after release from prison but pending deportation saying: ‘even if . . valid directions were given, the question remains whether, persuant to paragraph 4(1), the applicants continued thereafter, that is after the directions, to be held pending removal in pursuance of such directions. It quite clearly contemplates, of course, that there will be some interval of time between the giving of the directions and their implementation, and for that period of time there is authority to detain. But when one turns to the facts of this case, the reality of the position is that the applicants were being detained pending the trial at the Central Criminal Court at which they were required to give evidence. Accordingly on that second ground I think that detention was not justified.
Mr Slynn has argued very forcibly that of course the period contemplated that may elapse between the giving of the directions and the actual removal must be a reasonable period. He says here that in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the Secretary of State to require the detention of these two men pending the completion of the trial at the Central Criminal Court.
Much as I wish I could accede to that argument, it does seem to me that while a reasonable time is contemplated between the giving of the directions and the final removal, that is a reasonable time necessary to effect the physical removal, the truth of the matter is that the Home Office naturally desires to do nothing which will interfere with the trial. One sympathises with this object, but of course it can be achieved, by giving these applicants conditional permits. There are obvious practical reasons why this course is not adopted, because as experience has shown, nothing may ever be seen of the applicants again.’

Judges:

Lord Parker LCJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 129

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.425351

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Jul 2004

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. The claimant appealed that finding.
Held: The jurisdiction of the IAT was now restricted to issues of law. The respondents submissions to the contrary were plainly inconsistent with this legislation.

Judges:

Mummery, Laws LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-2004

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 101(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – BD (Application of SK and DK) Croatia CG IAT 26-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Subesh, Suthan, Nagulananthan and Vanniyasingam v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Mar-2004
The Immigration Appeal Tribunal should not interfere with an adjudicator’s decision unless it concludes that it is not merely able but is required to adopt a different view.
Laws LJ discussed the caution required of an appellate court: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.200241

MS (Grounds of Appeal: Late Amendment) Iran: IAT 20 Jul 2004

Appeal by a citizen of Iran from a decision dismissing his appeal on both asylum and human rights grounds. The first ground, on which permission to appeal was given, suggests that the adjudicator misunderstood the nature of the appellant’s case about being forced to play football for the Basij paramilitary security force. Ground 2 refers to a subsidiary ground for the adjudicator’s decision, which was mainly based on his rejection of the claimant’s credibility.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00200

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.199431

Regina (K) v Lambeth London Borough Council: QBD 16 Apr 2003

The applicant sought payment of benefits. She was an asylum seeker but had married after arrival. It seemed to be a marriage of convenience, and had been deemed such by the Home Secretary for the purposes of her intended repatriation.
Held: Family law recognised no status of a marriage of convenience. She was deemed to be properly, married, and the rules aplied on that basis. As a dependent asylum seeker she was not entitled to benefits unless refusal would constitute an infringement of her human rights.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

Times 14-May-2003

Statutes:

National Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Family, Immigration

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.182211

Regina and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Manneh: CA 21 Jul 1999

A renewed application brought out of time for permission to seek judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State 1) to decline to treat further material put before him in the case as a fresh claim to asylum and 2) to decline to refer the applicant’s case to a special adjudicator.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1915

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.146830

Regina v Stanislaus Pieck: ECJ 3 Jul 1980

Europa The right of community workers to enter the territory of a member state which community law confers may not be made subject to the issue of a clearance to that effect by the authorities of that member state. The restriction which article 48 of the EEC Treaty lays down concerning freedom of movement in the territory of member states, namely limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, must be regarded not as a condition precedent to the acquisition of the right of entry and residence but as providing the possibility, in individual cases where there is sufficient justification, of imposing restrictions on the exercise of a right derived directly from the treaty. It does not there- fore justify administrative measures requiring in a general way formalities at the frontier other than simply the production of a valid identity card or passport.
Article 3(2) of council directive no 68/360 prohibiting member states from demanding an entry visa or equivalent requirement for community workers moving within the community must be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘ entry visa or equivalent requirement ‘ covers any formality for the purpose of granting leave to enter the territory of a member state which is coupled with a passport or identity card check at the frontier, whatever may be the place or time at which that leave is granted and in whatever form it may be granted.
The issue of the special residence document provided for in article 4 of directive no 68/360 has only a declaratory effect and, for aliens to whom article 48 of the eec treaty or parallel provisions give rights, it cannot be assimilated to a residence permit such as is prescribed for aliens in general. A member state may not therefore require from a person enjoying the protection of community law that he should possess a general residence permit instead of the document provided for by the combined provisions of article 4 of and the annex to directive no 68/360, or impose penalties for the failure to obtain such a permit.
The failure on the part of a national of a member state of the community, to whom the rules on freedom of movement for workers apply, to obtain the special residence permit prescribed in article 4 of directive no 68/360 may not be punished by a recommendation for deportation or by measures which go as far as imprisonment.

Citations:

C-157/79

European, Immigration

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132927

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yiadom Case C-357/98: ECJ 16 Nov 2000

Where a citizen of a member state had been granted temporary admission, pending a final decision on whether she should be admitted or expelled, that decision was not one which could be classified as a ‘decision concerning entry,’ for the purposes of the directive, and by legal fiction the person was deemed to be out of the country, and accordingly was entitled to the procedural safeguards given by Article 9.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2000

Statutes:

ECTreaty Article 234, Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals, Immigration Act 1971 11(1)

Immigration, European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88657

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jammeh; Regina v Same Ex Parte Bajraktari; Similar: QBD 11 Sep 1997

The policy of not allowing asylum seekers to have work permits could not continue alongside the withdrawal of benefits and is ultra vires the powers of the Secretary of State.

Citations:

Times 11-Sep-1997

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88637

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Kaur (Justice, Intervener) Case C-192/99: ECJ 8 Mar 2001

The applicant had a British Passport, but had a British overseas citizen without a right of residence. Temporary leave to stay was renewed but eventually terminated. She claimed to be a citizen and therefore under European law entitled to freedom of movement within the EU. When the UK became a member of the EU it declared how it wished nationality to be defined. This was renewed and altered with the new Immigration Act. Customary international law allowed states to have different classes of citizenship with different rights, and her rights were determined by reference to the 1982 declaration.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2001

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981, ECTreaty Art 17 and 18

Immigration, European, International

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88639

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Urmaza: QBD 23 Jul 1996

A deportee after a marriage was to be treated in the same way as others despite desertion from ship. The application of the Home Secretary’s discretion under the Policy was in issue. The case ‘raises a novel question about the extent to which departmental policy is amenable to judicial review’. ‘these legal controls upon the deployment of discretion and the implementation of policy demonstrate that the courts do not limit themselves to a bare rationality test … such cases, as authority demonstrates, are not limited to irrationality; they include cases where an international policy has been disregarded or misapplied by one or more of a Minister’s officials’. And ‘the modern approach to a departmental policy document’ by saying that ‘it follows that those cases in which the challenge has been predicated upon pure irrationality are illustrative but not exhaustive of the grounds of challenge’. Policies should be applied consistently: ‘ . . similar situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified.’

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-1996, [1996] COD 479

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 11(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87912

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte Ali: QBD 25 Sep 1998

An adjudication officer, finding that an appeal had been abandoned, was entitled accordingly to decide the matter without consideration of the facts. The absence of statutory authority was decisive in view of long standing practice. Rules not ultra vires

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-1998

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1993, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 (1996 No 2070)

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86922

Regina (Gavira) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 15 May 2001

The procedure whereby the Secretary of State could certify that an asylum seeker’s claim did not disclose a valid ground, did not allow the Secretary to issue a certificate which depended upon a denial of the truth of the applicant’s claim. Where the claim asserted that the asylum-seeker had a fear of prosecution based upon facts which, if true, would bring her claim within the United Nations Convention, was a claim showing a fear of prosecution. The use of the procedure relying upon the disbelief of the applicant was quite unreasonable.

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001

Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85969

Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: QBD 12 Jun 2001

Where the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dealt with an appeal by remitting the case back to a special adjudicator for a rehearing, it had concluded the appeal, and it did not thereby delegate to the adjudicator its own function of deciding the appeal. There was no distinction to be made between procedural and substantive remittals. Remittal always involved disposing of the appeal to the IAT. Such a remittal was not a final determination of the appeal under section 9. The full Tribunal could not set aside an interlocutory decision of the chairman. That function was for the IAT.

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2001

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Sch 4, Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 (SI 2000 no 2333) 23

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86008

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Popatia and Another: QBD 18 Jul 2000

Where a notice of intention to deport had been issued, but had not come to the attention of the proposed deportee, this would not work to break the period of time after which the applicant could claim a 14 year residence concession. Though the procedures had been lawful at the time, the legitimate expectation created by the non-service must take precedence.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2000

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85535

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 7 Sep 2000

A finding that the applicant was an illegal immigrant had been subject to an application for judicial review on the basis that there had been insufficient evidence of an intent to deceive. The review had been refused because of the applicant’s delay. The applicant later sought to claim habeas corpus.
Held: This application was in effect merely a repetition of the earlier rejected application, and was an abuse of process. Although the review application had been refused for delay, the court had considered and rejected the merits of the application.

Citations:

Times 07-Sep-2000

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85508

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Ullah: QBD 17 Oct 2000

The fact that a claimant had acquired British citizenship in one way did not take away his right in addition to apply for naturalisation arising from his rights by descent. The latter process would create additional rights for his own children, and he had the right to apply. There was nothing in the legislation to suggest that the two alternatives were mutually exclusive, and the Home Office’s practice to the contrary was unlawful.

Citations:

Times 17-Oct-2000

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 6

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85541

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Asif: QBD 14 Mar 2000

When an applicant for asylum could only base his claim of a connection with this country by demonstrating a history of financial support provided by his family from this country, it was not irrational or unreasonable for the Home Secretary to deem such connection insufficient.

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2000

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85518

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Quaquah: QBD 20 Jan 2000

An asylum seeker had been wrongly accused of riot and sought to sue for damages for malicious prosecution. The Home Secretary, a possible defendant in that action decided to expel the failed asylum seeker.
Held: Such an action was in breach of the principle of equality of arms enshrined in the treaty, and deprived the applicant of any opportunity to prepare and present his case. The Secretary should have considered these elements before ordering the deportation.

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jan-2000, Times 21-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969), Civil Procedure Rules Rule 1.1(2)(a)

Cited by:

See Also – Quaquah v Group 4 Securities Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jun-2001
The claimant had been detained in an immigration detention centre. He complained of a malicious prosecution by the company, and against the secretary of state, in exercising a non-delegable duty to provide for his safety whilst in custody.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85525

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Saleem: QBD 11 Nov 1999

The rule which deemed an appellant to have received notice of the determination of his appeal two days after it was posted, irrespective of whether it in fact was received by him was ultra vires and unlawful. The effect of such a rule was draconian and could not be justified by reference to the Act under which the rules were made.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 22, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 No 2070

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85314

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 judicial review. This practice, unlike that on granting an appeal, was an extra statutory concession, and it could not be a determination of any question in issue under the appeal to the adjudicator.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 20

Citing:

Appealed to – 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85315

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Wanyoike: QBD 10 Mar 2000

A chairman of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal had refused to allow an appeal against an earlier order. He then discovered that certain information had not been made available to him. He re-opened his decision, but came to the same conclusion. The applicant sought to review that decision, on the grounds that an expectation had been created that he would be granted leave to appeal. His original decision had been a determination, and so was not open to such a review, or reconsideration.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85316

Kuijer v Council of the European Union Case T-188/98: ECJ 14 Apr 2000

An applicant sought access to documents of the Council of the European Union relating to asylum. The decision of the Council to refuse access to the documents was on the grounds that the material was politically sensitive, and disclosure would be against the public interest. The council failed however to consider the status of the separate documents separately, and so the decision was invalid. The default position was that Council documents should be made available, and the ability to withhold related to individual documents.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Council Decision 93/731/EC on Public Access to Council documents

European, Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82854

In Re Saidur Rahman: QBD 18 Jul 1996

A court hearing a deportation review should see all the evidence, including hearsay evidence if necessary.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-1996

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman CA 11-Dec-1996
Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman CA 11-Dec-1996
Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82186

In Re K (A Minor) (Adoption Order: Nationality): CA 22 Apr 1994

The child was born in Sierra Leone. Her mother died, and her aunt had adopted her in Sierra Leone in 1991. She came to England where a further adoption order was obtained only a few days short of her eighteenth birthday when the court made an order for his adoption. The result was to confer British Naionality on him.
Held: The acquisition of Britsih Nationality on an adoption could normally be set aside only if the order was successfully appealed or otherwise failed. The court would be reluctant to deprive the Home Secretary of his right to enter an appeal. Express language would have to have been used to withdraw that right. The acquisition of nationality rights is not a relevant or proper purpose for the making of an adoption order. When carrying out the balancing factor deciding the need for adoption, the court was not to take into account benefits which might flow from the acquisition of Nationality. Where a child was nearly an adult, the benefits other than from nationality were minimal. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Neil LJ, Balcombe LJ, Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-1994, Independent 27-May-1994

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 1(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re H (a Minor) 1986
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Immigration

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81970

Dupovac v Secretary of State for the Home Office: CA 16 Feb 2000

An asylum seeker awaiting the determination of an appeal who left the UK, was to be deemed by the Act to have abandoned the appeal. There was no part of the wording which allowed the court to differentiate between several classes of applicant. Since the Secretary could conclude that an appeal had been abandoned for any reason, the words could only mean that leaving the UK was determinative of abandonment.

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80181

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the Application of Paramsothy Sivakumar: Admn 22 Jan 2001

The applicant sought a judicial review of a refusal by the IAT of leave to appeal a refusal of asylum. He was a Tamil. He had been coerced into assisting the Tamil Tigers. The Special Adjudicator had considered only one possible convention reason, that of political opinion, omitting reference to race, and social group. He had been detained and tortured because his race made him liable to suspicion. This Court will quash an IAT refusal of leave to appeal when the Tribunal not acted rationally and ‘in a consistent and transparent way, giving clear reasons’ The appeal was dismissed, since the decision of the IAT was within the range of proper decisions it could make.

Judges:

Cresswell J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 109

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Rajendrakumar CA 11-Oct-1995
The three Tamil applicants had left the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers and gone to live in Colombo. It was asserted that in Colombo they had a well-founded fear of persecution because they were young male Tamils and were therefore . .
Cited – Paramananthan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 21-Dec-1998
MIGRATION – appeals in one case by refugee-claimant, in other by Minister – application for judicial review of decisions of Refugee Review Tribunal failed in one case and succeeded in the other – substantially identical passage in Tribunal’s Reasons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.140262

PP v The Home Office and Another: QBD 30 Mar 2017

The claimant had said that she was a victim of human trafficking. That claim being rejected, she was taken into immigration detention. She now claimed that this was unlawful.
Held: That the request for review was out of time did not defeat the claim where, the strict requirement having been relaxed because of the nature of the claim. However, the claim of false imprisonment should not be struck out.

Judges:

Parkes QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 663 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 233

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Human Rights, Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.581416

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Banger: ECJ 10 Apr 2018

Citizenship of The Union – UK – Return of A Union Citizen To The Member State – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Article 21 TFEU – Return of a Union citizen to the Member State of which that citizen is a national after having exercised free movement rights in another Member State – Right of residence of a third-country national who is a member of the extended family of a Union citizen – Application by analogy of Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 3(2)(b) – Obligation to facilitate, in accordance with national legislation, entry and residence for the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship – Right of appeal – Scope of judicial review – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Citations:

C-89/17, [2018] EUECJ C-89/17 – O, [2018] EUECJ C-89/17

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608629

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v MS (Pakistan): CA 23 Mar 2018

The SSHD appealed from decision against its own decision to remove the applicant, after it had been found that he was not a victim of human trafficking

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 594, [2018] WLR(D) 191, [2018] 4 WLR 63

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2006 82 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608360