Category: Immigration

Atkinson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 10 Oct 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2369 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (on the application of L and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 2003
The court considered the circumstances under which a certificate that an asylum claim was clearly unfounded could be issued: ‘[In considering s115] the decision maker will (i) consider the factual substance and detail of the claim (ii) consider how . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .

Cited by:

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

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.186826

Minh, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Jun 2015

A case about the proper operation of the procedures for determining whether a person may be a victim of trafficking.

Judges:

Helen Mountfield QC HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1725 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.549259

VT (Article 22 Procedures Directive – Confidentiality): UTIAC 19 Jul 2017

UTIAC (i) There is no general duty of inquiry upon the examiner to authenticate documents produced in support of a protection claim. There may be exceptional situations when a document can be authenticated by a simple process of inquiry which will conclusively resolve the authenticity and reliability of a document.
(ii) There is a general duty of confidentiality during the process of examining a protection claim, including appellate and judicial review proceedings. If it is considered necessary to make an inquiry in the country of origin the country of asylum must obtain the applicant’s written consent. Disclosure of confidential information without consent is only justified in limited and exceptional circumstances, such as combating terrorism.
(iii) The humanitarian principles underpinning Article 22 of the Procedures Directive prohibit direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution in the country of origin in a manner that might alert them to the likelihood that a protection claim has been made or in a manner that might place applicants or their family members in the country of origin at risk.
(iv) The humanitarian objective of the Refugee Convention requires anyone seeking to authenticate a document produced in support of a protection claim to follow a precautionary approach. Careful consideration should be given to the duty of confidentiality, to whether an inquiry is necessary, to whether there is a safer alternative and whether the inquiry is made in a way that does not give rise to additional protection issues for applicants or their family members. Disclosure of personal information should go no further than is strictly necessary. Whether an inquiry is necessary and is carried out in an appropriate way will depend on the facts of the case and the circumstances in the country of origin.
(v) Failure to comply with the duty of confidentiality or a breach of the prohibitions contained in Article 22 does not automatically lead to recognition as a refugee, but might be relevant to the overall assessment of risk on return.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 368 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601000

EA and Others (Article 3 Medical Cases – Paposhvili Not Applicable : Afghanistan): UTIAC 7 Aug 2017

The test in Paposhvili v Belgium, 13 December 2016, ECtHR (Application No 41738/10) is not a test that it is open to the Tribunal to apply by reason of its being contrary to judicial precedent.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not applicable – Paposhvili v Belgium ECHR 13-Dec-2016
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601002

AS, Regina (on The Application of) v Kent County Council (Age Assessment; Dental Evidence): UTIAC 11 Sep 2017

1. The application of the benefit of the doubt is nothing more than an acknowledgement that age assessment cannot be concluded with complete accuracy, absent definitive documentary evidence, and is in the case of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who may also have been traumatised, unlikely to be supported by other evidence. On that basis, its proper application is that where, having considered the evidence, the decision maker concludes there is doubt as to whether an individual is over 18 or not, the decision-maker should conclude that the applicant is under 18.
2. The benefit of the doubt is not of use where a specific date or age has to be determined except insofar as it requires a sympathetic assessment of the evidence as indicated in R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1590.
3. Human teeth develop as an individual progresses through childhood and into adulthood; that much is clear. How, and to what extent, the stages of that development are indicative of age (and the extent to which it can been assessed by a dental examination) is a matter of significant debate as was noted in R (on the application of ZM and SK) v The London Borough of Croydon (Dental age assessment) [2016] UKUT 559 (IAC).
4. In addition to the issues considered by ZM and SK the Mandibular Maturity Markers (MMMs), Root Pulp Visibility (RPV) and Periodontal Ligament Visibility (PLV) are unreliable.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 446

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601004

Mustafa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (2000 Order – Notification of Representation): UTIAC 25 Aug 2017

(i) The effect of Article 8ZA of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 (SI No. 2000/1161), considered in tandem with the Home Office published policy, is that where the Home Office receives notification that an applicant has instructed a representative or has a new representative and the specified requirements are satisfied, the notification must be accepted and the Home Office internal records must be updated accordingly.
(ii) Conversely, where the notification is rejected for non-compliance with any of the specified requirements, both the applicant and the representative must be informed.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 407 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601003

Uddin (2000 Order – Notice To File : Bangladesh): UTIAC 11 Sep 2017

(i) Where the Secretary of State relies on a curtailment notice as having been deemed to have been given by being placed ‘on file’ in accordance with article 8ZA(4) of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 (as amended) (‘the 2000 Order’), it is for the Secretary of State to establish that that article applied.
(ii) The Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 allows for the sending of a curtailment notice to an overseas address.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 408 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601005

Gabor, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Reg 29Aa: Interpretation): UTIAC 25 Oct 2016

1. An application for Temporary Admission pursuant to reg 29AA of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 must be granted unless the applicant’s appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security. Proportionality is not the test, and the cost of facilitating the applicant’s appearance is not a relevant consideration. The test is whether it can be said properly that there is the necessary basis for refusing leave pursuant to para 29AA(3).
2. ‘Appearance’, in this context, means presence in the UK for the purpose of attending the hearing (Kasicky doubted).
3. Where admission is granted for this purpose it must take place within a reasonable time to allow the applicant properly to instruct his solicitors. Normally, some 2 or 3 days before the hearing will be required.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 287 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600999

Anjum, Regina (on The Application of) v Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad (Entrepreneur – Business Expansion – Fairness Generally): UTIAC 16 Aug 2017

(i) A proposal by a Tier 1 Entrepreneur applicant who operates an existing business to use part of the prescribed minimum finance of pounds 200,000 to purchase a second business for the purpose of developing and expanding the existing enterprise is compatible with paragraph 245 of the Immigration Rules.
(ii) An immigration interview may be unfair, thereby rendering the resulting decision unlawful, where inflexible structural adherence to prepared questions excludes the spontaneity necessary to repeat or clarify obscure questions and/or to probe or elucidate answers given.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 406 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601001

Supawan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Nov 2017

Claim for judicial review by a citizen of Thailand, challenging the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant

Judges:

Pushpinder Saint QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2918 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599708

In re Saidur Rahman: QBD 1977

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[1977] Imm App Rep 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Cengiz Doldur Admn 26-Jun-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of the immigration officer’s finding that he was an illegal immigrant within the section. He had failed to declare that after obtaining temporary permission to enter, he had got married. It was not suggested that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.219115

Help Refugees Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 2 Nov 2017

The court was asked as to issues arising from the passing of s.67 of the 2016 Act, a provision designed to address the impact of the refugee crisis in Europe upon unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC), and in particular to make arrangements for the relocation of such children from other European States to the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Treacey LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2727 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 725, [2017] 4 WLR 203

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration Act 2016 67

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599407

Kamki v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Oct 2017

Immigration case concerning the proposed deportation of the appellant, who has a right of permanent residence in the UK.

Judges:

Sals, Newey LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1715

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Immigration

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598465

Regina (M) v Islington London Borough Council and Another: QBD 5 Jun 2003

The applicant had come to England from Guyana. She married here and had a child, but after her divorce, she was to be removed back to her home country. She applied for emergency housing, but was offered only short term housing and the cost of a flight back to Guyana for herself and her child. She appealed, saying that it might yet take a longer time for any order for her removal to come through.
Held: The claimant was no longer lawfully present in the UK. There was statutory support for the withdrawal of support provided her human rights were not infringed, but the prohibition on support did not extend to her child, and support could be continued where the claimant had not failed to co-operate with attempts at her removal. The decision with respect to the claimant was lawful, but as regards the decision about the child, the local authority had failed to consider the rights of the child’s father, and had obtained no evidence as to the child’s possible future in Guyana. Their s17 assessment was flawed and set aside.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2003, Gazette 14-Aug-2003

Statutes:

Witholding and Withdrawal of Support (travel Assistance and Temporary Accomodation) regulations 2002 (2002 No 3078) 3(3), Children Act 1989 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – M v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.183694

AS (Iran) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 12 Oct 2017

Appeal from the decision of the Upper Tribunal dismissing an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal refusing the Appellant’s claims for asylum and humanitarian protection. She says she will in any event be at risk as a Christian if returned to Iran.

Judges:

Rafferty, Irwin, Moylan LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1539

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.596083

Ilori, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 21 Dec 2017

The court was asked whether the Defendant acted lawfully in maintaining detention of the Claimant, a Nigerian national, in an Immigration Removal Centre following receipt of a report prepared under Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001

Judges:

Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3355 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.602588

Citizens UK v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Sep 2017

Application of CUK for judicial review of the procedures adopted by SSHD shortly before and in the aftermath of the French Government’s closure in October 2016 of the camp in Calais known colloquially as ‘the Jungle’ and the subsequent dispersal of its occupants to accommodation centres called CAOMIs (Centres d’accueil et d’orientation pour mineurs isoles). The procedures related to over 2000 young people in the camp and CAOMIs who were seeking to come to the UK as unaccompanied minors in order to join family members and claim asylum.
Held: The request failed.

Judges:

Soule J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2301 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594654