Category: Immigration

Sadovska and Another v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 7 Jul 2016

[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 51
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Sadovska and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Jul-2017
The parties had applied to be married. S was a European citizen, and the intended groom was an overstayer from Pakistan. They were refused a licence, and taken into custody, and now appealed against refusal of a licence.
Held: The appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Immigration

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.567043

Benjamin and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 11 Jul 2016

Request for judicial review of the Defendant’s refusal, in 2013, to grant an EEA family permit or entry clearance to enable Mrs Benjamin to enter and reside in the United Kingdom (‘UK’) with her husband, Mr Benjamin, and their children. Mr Benjamin and their children are British citizens, but Mrs Benjamin is a Kenyan national. The family had previously been residing together in France.

Lang DBE J
[2016] EWHC 1626 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566882

NA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: CA 29 Jun 2016

Four appeals, each of which raises the question whether a foreign criminal is entitled to resist deportation by reliance upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Jackson, Sharp, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 662
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566664

The Lord Chancellor v Detention Action: CA 29 Jul 2015

The claimant challenged the legality of the Fast Track Rules 2014 which govern appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against refusals by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) of asylum applications.
Held: The Court upheld the quashing of ‘Fast Track Rules’ which required asylum seekers, detained by the Home Secretary at specified locations, to present any appeal against the refusal of asylum within seven days of the refusal. Lord Dyson MR referred to ‘the principle that only the highest standards of fairness will suffice in the context of asylum appeals’. He explained that the timetable for the conduct of the appeals was so tight that a significant number of appellants would be denied a fair opportunity to present them. In those circumstances the court had no need to address a further argument that it had been in breach of natural justice for the Home Secretary, as the respondent to any appeal, to have been able, by detaining the asylum seeker at a specified location, to cause him to be placed into the fast track. He suggested, however, that, had the rules for the fast track been fair, it would have been irrelevant that it was the Home Secretary who had caused them to be engaged.
‘ . . (i) in considering whether a system is fair, one must look at the full run of cases that go through the system; (ii) a successful challenge to a system on grounds of unfairness must show more than the possibility of aberrant decisions and unfairness in individual cases; (iii) a system will only be unlawful on grounds of unfairness if the unfairness is inherent in the system itself; (iv) the threshold of showing unfairness is a high one; (v) the core question is whether the system has the capacity to react appropriately to ensure fairness (in particular where the challenges directed to the tightness of time limits, whether there is sufficient flexibility in the system to avoid unfairness); (vi) whether the irreducible minimum of fairness is respected by the system and therefore lawful is ultimately a matter for the courts.’

Lord Dyson MT, Briggs, Beam LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 840, [2015] WLR(D) 352, [2016] 3 All ER 626, [2015] Imm AR 1349, [2016] INLR 79, [2015] 1 WLR 5341, [2016] INLR 79
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Detention Action v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Others Admn 12-Jun-2015
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Cited – Austin, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales Admn 17-Jan-2022
Parole Board Publication Scheme Unduly Complicated
This claim for judicial review raises important issues about the lawfulness of the Parole Board’s policy and practice in relation to the provision of a summary of a Parole Board decision to victims and victims’ families and the media. The protocol . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.550820

ZA (Nigeria) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 31 Mar 2010

The court was asked whether the Secretary of State is entitled to refrain from making an appealable immigration decision in response to an asylum claim or a human rights claim which he judges rationally to be merely repetitious of an earlier claim whose rejection has been unsuccessfully challenged in a concluded appeal.

Foskett J
[2010] EWHC 718 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.406636

Johnson (Deportation – 4 Years Imprisonment : Sierra Leone): UTIAC 13 May 2016

UTIAC When a foreign offender has been convicted of an offence for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment of at least 4 years and has successfully appealed on human rights grounds, this does not prevent the Secretary of State from relying on the conviction for the purposes of paragraph 398(a) of the Immigration Rules and s.117C of the 2002 Act if and when he re-offends even if the later offence results in less than 4 years imprisonment or, indeed, less than 12 months imprisonment.

[2016] UKUT 282 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565874

Khurram, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Effective Service; 2000 Order) (IJR): UTIAC 18 Apr 2016

UTIAC For the purposes of Art 8ZA(2) of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1161)(as inserted by SI 2013/174 with effect from 12 July 2013), a notice is not sent to a postal address ‘provided for correspondence by the person’ if the address is provided to the Secretary of State by a third party such as a sponsor educational institution unless the third party is the authorised agent of the person.
However, where no postal address (or e-mail address) for correspondence has been provided, an address provided by a third party may be the ‘last-known or usual place of abode’ of the person within Art 8ZA(3)(a) to which a notice may be sent.

[2016] UKUT 281 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565873

Shehu, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: UTIAC 7 Jun 2016

UTIAC Citizens Directive: No Suspensive Appeals – Immigration judicial review – The redress procedure required by articles 31 and 35 of the Citizens Directive does not make it necessary to treat EEA appeals of any kind as suspensive, since arrangements can be made, on the conditions set out in article 31.4, for allowing the subject to submit his defence in person, which is reason enough for declining to treat the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ahmed as per incuriam for not dealing with article 35.

[2016] UKUT 287 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565879

Nkomo (Deportation: 2014 Rights of Appeal : Zimbabwe): UTIAC 20 May 2016

UTIAC The No 3 Commencement Order of the 2014 Act, SI 2014/2771, extends the new appeals provisions to identified persons, but the amendment of it in SI 2014/2928 further extends those provisions to identified decisions.
In consequence, a person against whom a deportation decision was made in the period 10 November 2014 – 5 April 2015 may have no right of appeal if the decisions actually made carry rights of appeal only under the new appeals provisions. (Note: A further change was made to the commencement provision with effect from 2 March 2015, which did not fall for consideration on the facts of this case.)

[2016] UKUT 285 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565876

Hamat (Article 9 – freedom of religion): UTIAC 6 Jun 2016

Article 9 – Freedom of Religion : Afghanistan
(i) Article 9 – the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion – is a distinctive feature of the Human Rights Act to be considered separately from Article 8 when it applies.
(ii) Article 9 permits the same structured approach to the assessment of an Article 8 human rights claim identified by Lord Bingham in his 5-stage approach set out in paragraph 17 of Razgar [2004] UKHL 27 save for the omission of the ‘economic well-being of the country’ criterion in Article 9 (2).
(iii) In an appeal where the violation is alleged to occur by reason of removal from the United Kingdom, the test of proportionality governs the exercise of Article 9 rights and not t he more stringent approach involving whether the returnee is at risk of a flagrant denial or gross violation in his home country.
(iv) A further distinctive feature is the creation of a statutory right in s.13 of the Human Rights Act 1998, independent of Article 9, enabling a religious organisation to benefit from the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion alongside its members collectively and individually.
(v) Matters relied on by way of a positive contribution to the community are capable in principle of affecting the weight to be given to the maintenance of effective immigration control and should not be excluded from consideration altogether but are unlikely in practice to carry much weight.
(vi) The operation of the Immigration Rules will not amount to an unlawful interference in the selection of a religious leader when the personality of the appellant has not influenced the decision and where anybody in the same position as the appellant who fails to meet the requirements of the Rules is likely to be refused.

ordan UTJ
[2016] UKUT 286 (IAC)
Bailii
Immigration Rules, European Convention on Human Rights 9
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565878

MS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 22 Jun 2016

The issue in this case concerns the true meaning and ambit of the additional right of appeal specific to asylum claims which was given by section 83 of the 2002 Act.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 33
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 83
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565831

MP (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 22 Jun 2016

The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to ‘subsidiary protection status’ under articles 2 and 15 of EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC on the minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 32
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Council Directive 2004/83/EC 2 15
England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565830

MK and IKR, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: UTIAC 24 May 2016

UTIAC Calais; Dublin Regulation – Investigative Duty – (IJR) (i) In making a decision whether to accept a ‘take charge’ request under the Dublin Regulation, the Secretary of State is obliged to take all material considerations into account and to comply with the ‘Tameside’ duty of enquiry.
(ii) The Dublin Regulation and its sister instrument, Commission Regulation (EC) 1550/2003, subject the Secretary of State to duties of enquiry, investigation and evidence gathering. The discharge of these duties will be factually and contextually sensitive and is governed by the principle that the Secretary of State is obliged to take reasonable steps.
(iii) In a context where there are successive ‘take charge’ requests and successive decisions in response thereto, the aforementioned duties apply throughout.
(iv) The aforementioned duties may also arise via the procedural dimension of Article 8 ECHR, under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(v) The principles rehearsed above may give rise to a remedy comprising a mandatory order requiring the Secretary of State to take all reasonable steps and use her best endeavours in certain specified respects.

[2016] UKUT 231 (IAC)
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565388

JM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Statelessness: Part 14 of Hc 395) (IJR): UTIAC 25 Nov 2015

UTIAC The child, born in the United Kingdom, of a foreign national, who seeks to be recognised as stateless, but who can under the law of the parent’s nationality, obtain citizenship of that country by descent by registering their birth, may properly be regarded as admissible to that country , as set out at paragraph 403(c) of HC 395. Though a greater intensity of scrutiny is appropriate in a case such as this, it remains the case that the decision that an individual is not stateless can only be impugned on public law principles.

[2015] UKUT 676 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565376

Treebhawon and Others (Section 117B): UTIAC 19 Nov 2015

UTIAC (i) Section 117B (6) is a reflection of the distinction which Parliament has chosen to make between persons who are, and who are not, liable to deportation. In any case where the conditions enshrined in section 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are satisfied, the section 117B(6) public interest prevails over the public interests identified in section 117B (1)-(3).
(ii) Section 117B (4) and (5) are not parliamentary prescriptions of the public interest. Rather, they operate as instructions to courts and tribunals to be applied in cases where the balancing exercise is being conducted in order to determine proportionality under Article 8 ECHR, in cases where either of the factors which they identify arises.

[2015] UKUT 674 (IAC)
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 117B, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565381

Terrelonge (Para 399(B)): UTIAC 3 Nov 2015

(i) The requirements in para 399(b) are conjunctive. Accordingly, the correct approach is to consider para 399(b)(i) before the requirements in para 399(b)(ii) and (iii). If para 399(b)(i) is not satisfied, there is no need to consider the issues of undue hardship in para 399(b)(ii) and (iii). The offender would then have to rely upon showing other factors that show very compelling circumstances over and beyond those described in paras 399 and 399A.
(ii) P ara 399(b)(i) will only be satisfied if the relationship relied upon was entered into at a time when: (a) the offender had settled status which he had not obtained by deception or other means that imperils his settled status; and (b) he did not fall within the definitions of ‘foreign criminal’ in s.32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 or s.117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and (c) he had not been notified of his liability to deportation.
(iii) The automatic deportation provisions in s.32 of the 2007 Act apply to persons convicted in the period between the passing of the Act (30 October 2007) and its implementation (1 August 2008).

Upper Tribunal Judge Gill
[2015] UKUT 653 (IAC)
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, UK Borders Act 2007
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565379

Roohi and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (2014 Act: Saved Appeal Rights) (IJR): UTIAC 14 Dec 2015

UTIAC (1) The commencement of the Immigration Act 2014 does not remove rights of appeal from those who were served with appealable decisions before 6 April 2015.
(2) This means that those with a right of appeal exercisable only from outside the United Kingdom (including some ETS cases), have an adequate alternative remedy, and as such judicial review will not lie save in a small minority of cases that are in some way exceptional.

[2015] UKUT 685 (IAC)
Bailii
Immigration Act 2014
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565387

Khan and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Common Costs) (IJR): UTIAC 11 Dec 2015

UTIAC The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make a Common Costs Order in appropriate cases.
That jurisdiction will, however, be exercised only on the basis of establishing facts demonstrating the total amount of costs in question and the number of cases to which that total is attributable.
If ETS cases are pursued to an oral hearing at which there is no prospect of success, the Tribunal will consider whether the case should be treated as an exception to the Mount Cook principles.

[2015] UKUT 684 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565385

Muhandiramge (Section S-LTR17): UTIAC 20 Nov 2015

UTIAC Where an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom is refused under Section S-LTR.1.7 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules on the ground of the Applicant’s failure without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement to provide information, the burden of establishing a reasonable excuse rests on the applicant and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

McCloskey P J, Bruce UTJ
[2015] UKUT 675 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565378

Jakhu, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Ets: Legitimate Expectations) (IJR): UTIAC 9 Dec 2015

UTIAC The demonstration of an unambiguous promise or representation devoid of any relevant qualification is an essential prerequisite to establishing a substantive legitimate expectation to which the tribunal will give effect.

[2015] UKUT 693 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565384

Patel, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Duration of Leave – Policy (IJR): UTIAC 21 Oct 2015

UTIAC (1) The decision of the High Court in R (SM and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1144 (Admin) relating to the 2009 Discretionary Leave policy and instruction only applies to cases where the decision to grant leave to remain was made prior to 24 June 2013.
(2) There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to grant ILR or to consider granting ILR in circumstances where no formal application for ILR has been made.
(3) It is legitimate for the Secretary of State to grant leave to remain for 30 months on an application that is decided on or after 9 July 2012 irrespective of when the application was made unless it was made between 9 July 2012 and 6 September 2012: see para [56] of Singh and Khalid v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 74.

[2015] UKUT 561 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565366

Huang and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (‘No Time Limit’ Transfer: Fraud) (IJR): UTIAC 23 Nov 2015

UTIAC 1. The Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a claim challenging a decision not to transfer a ‘No Time Limit’ (NTL) vignette to a person’s new travel document.
2. In cases where a decision of that sort is said to be motivated by a perception that the person obtained leave by deception, the Secretary of State should rely on the process available to her for cancelling leave.

Collins J
[2015] UKUT 662 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565374

Lokombe (DRC: FNOS – Airport Monitoring): UTIAC 8 Sep 2015

UTIAC The fact that there was an August 2013 report providing the answers given by 8 EU/Western countries documenting the return of a significant number of FNOs to the DRC without there having been any allegations of problems on return (except ones from Belgium, none substantiated) was a very significant piece of evidence that was not negated by the fact that in Kinshasa there is no airport monitoring carried out by outside governments or NGOs.

Stoety, Canavan UTJJ
[2015] UKUT 627 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565362

VT (India) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Feb 2016

Renewed application for permission to appeal against a determination of the Upper Tribunal upholding the earlier determination of the First Tier Tribunal which dismissed the appeals of the applicant and his wife and daughter against the decisions of the Secretary of State refusing the applicant’s application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 entrepreneur under the points based system of the Immigration Rules, and removal directions had been set for the applicant and his dependants.

Laws LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 421
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565350

AAW (Expert Evidence – Weight): UTIAC 5 Nov 2015

UTIAC A failure to comply with the Senior President’s Practice Direction may affect the weight to be given to expert evidence. Any opinion offered that is unsupported by a demonstration of the objectivity and comprehensive review of material facts required of an expert witness is likely to be afforded little weight by the Tribunal. In particular, a witness who does not engage with material facts or issues that might detract from the view being expressed risks being regarded as an informed advocate for the case of one of the parties to the proceedings rather than an independent expert witness.

Upper Tribunal Judge Southern
[2015] UKUT 673 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565369

Bent, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (IJR): UTIAC 6 Nov 2015

Application for judicial review of decisions of the respondent to remove him from the United Kingdom, to refuse to revoke a deportation order and to certify that refusal under Section 96 of the 2002 Act, leaving the applicant with no right of appeal against the decision.

[2015] UKUT 654 (IAC)
Bailii
the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 96
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565372

Greenwood (No 2) (Para 398 Considered): UTIAC 16 Nov 2015

UTIAC (i) The exercise of considering whether there are very compelling circumstances over and above those described in paragraphs 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules must, logically, be preceded by an assessment that the appellant’s case does not fall within paragraph 399 or 399A.
(ii) At the stages of both granting permission to appeal and determining appeals, it is essential to expose those cases where, properly analysed, the challenge to the First-tier Tribunal’s decision is based on unvarnished irrationality grounds. The elevated threshold for intervention on appeal thereby engaged must be recognised.
(iii) Every application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal should be preceded by a conscientious, considered assessment of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (‘FtT’). Inundation of the Upper Tribunal with permission to appeal applications in every case belonging to a given category is not harmonious with the Parliamentary intention.
(iv) Remittal to the Secretary of State is not one of the disposal powers now available to the FtT, which are threefold: to allow the appeal, to dismiss the appeal or to make a decision the effect whereof is that the Secretary of State either must, or may, make a fresh decision.
(v) The eleventh hour advent of skeleton arguments and Rule 24 Notices is in breach of the Upper Tribunal’s procedural rules and is an unacceptable practice.

[2015] UKUT 629 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565373

Semeda, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Statelessness; Pham Applied) (IJR): UTIAC 21 Oct 2015

UTIAC (i) Paragraph 403 of the Immigration Rules co-exists, and must be given effect in tandem, with the United Nations Convention Relating To The Status Of Stateless Persons and the Secretary of State’s policy instruction.
(ii) In every statelessness case, the four interlocking components of the governing test are whether the person concerned is considered as . . a national . . by any state … under the operation of its law: Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19 applied.
(iii) Given that statelessness applications and decisions are made within the realm of public law, the governing principles include the Tameside ( Secretary of State for Education and Science v Metropolitan Borough Council of Tameside [1977] AC 1014) and the British Oxygen ( British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610) principles.
(iv) The policies of public authorities are not merely material considerations to be taken into account by the decision maker. Rather, they trigger a duty to give effect to their terms, absent good reason for departure.
(v) In some cases it may be necessary to consider the practice of the government of a foreign state as well as its nationality laws.

Mr Justice McCloskey, President, Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds
[2015] UKUT 658 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565367

Osoro (Surinder Singh): UTIAC 22 Oct 2015

UTIAC (i) The rationale of the decision in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department [1992] ECR I-4265 is formed by two principles, namely the principle of the efficacious enjoyment of Treaty rights and the principle of non-discrimination.
(ii) These are the two principles to which Tribunals must have particular regard in deciding cases in which the appellant does not satisfy any of the provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations.
(iii) The co-existence of the decision in Surinder Singh with Directive 2004/38/EC (‘the Citizens Directive’) raises questions which may require to be determined in some appropriate future case.

President, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey, Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds
[2015] UKUT 593 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565365

Clarke (Section 117C – Limited To Deportation): UTIAC 22 Oct 2015

UTIAC That section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is applicable only in deportation cases is made clear in section 117A(2) which, in directing the court or tribunal to the considerations involved when looking at the public interest question, clearly distinguishes between those cases that involve deportation from those that do not. Section 117A(2)(b) provides for a distinct category of cases, providing that, in considering the public interest question, the court or tribunal must have regard to the considerations listed in section 117C ‘ in cases concerning the deportation of foreign criminals’
Accordingly, irrespective of whether or not an appellant may fall within the definition of a ‘foreign criminal’ in section 117D(2), the provisions of section 117C of the 2002 Act only apply in cases involving deportation

Kebede UTJ
[2015] UKUT 628 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565363

Mitchell (Basnet Revisited): UTIAC 8 Oct 2015

UTIAC 1. The decision of the Tribunal in Basnet v SSHD [2012] UKUT 113 (IAC) does not put the burden of proof on the Secretary of State where the application was, on its face, insufficiently completed.
2. The evidence shows that the payment pages are retained for 18 months. Thus, within that period, any question of the reason for failure to obtain payment can be investigated, although the reasons for declining a payment are available only to the bank account holder, not the Secretary of State. In the light of this, a more nuanced approach to the burden of proof may be needed.

[2015] UKUT 562 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565364

AB (Para 399(A)): UTIAC 20 Nov 2015

UTIAC Head note 3 of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Ogundimu (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 60 (IAC) applies to the version of para 399(a) of the Immigration Rules that was in force as at 27 July 2014. It does not apply to the current version of para 399(a) of the Immigration Rules which came into force on 28 July 2014. This is because the current version does not have the requirement that ‘there is no other family member who is able to care for the child in the UK’ which concerned the Upper Tribunal in Ogundimu.

[2015] UKUT 657 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565370

AT and Another (Article 8 ECHR – Child Refugee – Family Reunification : Eritrea): UTIAC 24 Mar 2016

UTIAC While the Immigration Rules make no provision for family reunification in the United Kingdom in the case of a child who has been granted asylum, a refusal to permit the family members of such child to enter and remain in the United Kingdom may constitute a disproportionate breach of the right to respect for family life enjoyed by all family members under Article 8 ECHR

McCloskey, P J
[2016] UKUT 227 (IAC)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565667

Katsonga v Secretary of State for The Home Department (‘Slip Rule’ : FTT’s General Powers : Zimbabwe): UTIAC 19 Apr 2016

UTIAC 1. The ‘Slip Rule’, rule 31 of the First-tier Tribunal Procedure Rules, cannot be used to reverse the effect of a decision.
2. Following the repeal by the 2014 Act of subsections (3) to (6) of s 86 of the 2002 Act, the First-tier Tribunal appears to have no duty or power to ‘allow’ or ‘dismiss’ an appeal.

Ockleton VP
[2016] UKUT 228 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565669

LM v CPAS De Seraing: ECJ 4 Mar 2020

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Immigration policy – Return of illegally staying third-country nationals – Parent of a minor child suffering from a serious illness who became of full age during the appeal procedure relating to the rejection of the authorization request of stay – Order to leave the territory – Directive 2008/115 – Article 13 – Legal remedy with suspensive effect – Article 14 – Guarantees pending return – Basic needs – Granting of social assistance to the parent – Charter of rights Fundamentals of the European Union – Articles 7, 24 and 47 – Dependent relationship between parent and seriously ill child

C-402/19, [2020] EUECJ C-402/19_O, ECLI: EU: C: 2020 : 155, [2020] EUECJ C-402/19
Bailii, Bailii
European

Children, Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654869

PG v Bevandorlasi Es Menekultugyi Hivatal: ECJ 19 Mar 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection – Common procedures for granting international protection – Directive 2013/32 / EU – Article 46, paragraph 3 – Full and ex nunc examination – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to an effective remedy – Powers and duties of the court of first instance – Lack of power to reform the decisions of the competent authorities in matters of international protection – National regulations providing for an obligation to rule in a period of 60 days

C-406/18, [2020] EUECJ C-406/18, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 216, [2019] EUECJ C-406/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654849

LH v Bevandorlasi Es Menekultugyi Hivatal (Tompa): ECJ 19 Mar 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32 / EU – Request for international protection – Article 33, paragraph 2 – Grounds for inadmissibility – National legislation providing for ” inadmissibility of the application if the applicant has arrived in the Member State concerned from a country where he is not exposed to persecution or to the risk of serious harm, or if that country grants sufficient protection – Article 46 – Law to an effective remedy – Judicial review of administrative decisions concerning the inadmissibility of applications for international protection – Eight-day period for ruling – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

C-564/18, [2020] EUECJ C-564/18, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 218, [2019] EUECJ C-564/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654850

Solak v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen: ECJ 13 Feb 2020

Order – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Article 59 of the additional protocol – Decision No 3/80 – Social security for Turkish migrant workers – Lifting of the residence clauses – Article 6 – Additional benefit – Suspension – Renunciation of the nationality of the host Member State – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Special non-contributory cash benefits – Residence condition

C-258/18, [2020] EUECJ C-258/18_CO
Bailii
European

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654823

Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Orszagos Rendor-fokapitanysag: ECJ 27 Feb 2020

Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Directive 2004/38 / EC – Articles 5, 10 and 20 – Right of entry into the territory of a Member State of a national of a third State, member of the family of a citizen of the Union – Visa exemption – Residence card for a family member – Permanent residence card – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Article 26 – Obligation on carriers to ensure that their passengers have the travel documents required to enter the Member State of destination

C-754/18, [2020] EUECJ C-754/18_O, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 131, [2020] EUECJ C-754/18
Bailii, Bailii
European

Transport, Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654822

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v KG (India): CA 23 May 2016

Appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the Upper Tribunal) upholding the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which had allowed the respondent’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant, and to remove her from the United Kingdom.

Sharp LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 477
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564514

Cakabay v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 30 Jun 1998

[1998] EWCA Civ 1116, [1999] Imm AR 176
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others SC 26-Nov-2009
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been . .
Cited – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.144595

ZA (Nigeria) and SM (Congo), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jul 2010

The court was asked whether, as the Administrative Court decided, the Secretary of State was entitled to refrain from making an appealable immigration decision in response to an asylum claim or a human rights claim which he reasonably concluded was merely a repetition of an earlier claim whose rejection had been unsuccessfully challenged in a concluded appeal.

[2010] EWCA Civ 926
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.421213

Hussein, Regina (on The Application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Para 353: Present Scope and Effect)(IJR): UTIAC 8 Aug 2016

UTIAC (1) Lord Neuberger’s judgment in R (ZA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 926 is an authoritative pronouncement on the scope of the Supreme Court’s judgments in R (BA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKSC 7.
(2) Parliament’s actions in amending paragraph 353 (fresh claims) of the immigration rules in the light of the changes to the appeal regime made by the Immigration Act 2014, together with its decisions:-
(i) to amend, but without bringing into force, the prospective amendments made in 2006 to the definition of ‘human rights claim’ in section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and
(ii) to amend the existing definition of ‘human rights claim’ in the light of the 2014 Act,
show that Parliament intends paragraph 353 to be used to determine whether further submissions constitute a fresh human rights claim for the purpose of ‘new’ section 82 of the 2002 Act.
(3) If, in the post-2014 Act world, Parliament had intended paragraph 353 to apply only to the Secretary of State’s certification decisions, then Parliament would have made this plain. If the applicant were correct that paragraph 353 currently has only such a limited ambit, commencing the 2006 amendments to section 113 of the 2002 Act would not enable the Secretary of State to make any significantly greater and/or coherent use of paragraph 353.
(4) Parliament’s decision to leave in place the expressions ‘submissions’ and ‘if rejected’ in paragraph 353 are indicative that they continue to serve the function of permitting the Secretary of State to categorise cases as between those that do not amount to a claim at all and those which, though rejected, amount to a fresh human rights claim for the purposes of ‘new’ section 82.
(5) The Secretary of State is not the sole arbiter of whether, in any particular case, she has made a decision to refuse a human rights claim, as opposed to refusing to treat submissions as amounting to a fresh claim.

[2016] UKUT 409 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.570459

Robinson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: CA 4 May 2017

Appeal by a foreign criminal asylum claimant against a decision that his additional submissions were not ‘fresh claims’ and that he had no right to a second appeal before the First-tier Tribunal.

Jackson, Hamblen, Flaux LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 316
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.582111

MG, Regina (on The Application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (‘Fresh Claim’; Para 353: No Appeal) (IJR): UTIAC 17 May 2016

UTIAC 1. A decision that further submissions do not amount to a ‘fresh claim’ under para 353 of the Immigration Rules is not a decision to refuse a protection or human rights claim and so does not give rise to a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under s.82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended by s.15 of the Immigration Act 2014).
2. Whilst the First-tier Tribunal must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it cannot decide whether a decision that further submissions do not amount to a fresh claim under para 353 was lawful or correct. Such a decision can only be challenged on public law principles in judicial review proceedings.

[2016] UKUT 283 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.565875