Waqar, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Statutory Appeals/Paragraph 353) ( IJR): UTIAC 25 Mar 2015

UTIAC 1. The current statutory appeal regime requires a decision to be made on a human rights claim. Without a claim and without a decision there is no appeal.
2. Where a claim has already been determined, submissions made subsequent to that require a decision as to whether they amount to a claim. Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules provides the mechanism to determine whether they amount to a claim the refusal of which enables a right of appeal.
3. Commencement Order 2014/2928 brings those whose deportation decision (which includes a decision to refuse to revoke a deportation order) was made after 10th November 2014 into the statutory scheme in the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended by the Immigration Act 2014, irrespective of when they were convicted of a criminal offence.

Coker, Kebede UTJJ
[2015] UKUT 169 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRobinson (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.547331

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:
CitedRobinson (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

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 fromRobinson (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

ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 4 Feb 2009

The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. The respondent said that the limitation on further applications while ‘appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending’ continued so long as an appel was possible and did not refer to any existing appeal in fact made.
Held: The Court of Appeal was correct to proceed upon the basis that rule 353 applied to the further submissions that were made by ZT to the Secretary of State. In this case the Secretary was right to conclude that the claim had no prospect of success. Appeal allowed.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2009] UKHL 6, [2009] 1 WLR 348, [2009] INLR 310, [2009] 3 All ER 976
Bailii, HL, Times
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-2006
The court considered the proper role of the Secretary of state and of the court when failed asylum seekers produced new material arguing that it was a fresh claim. Buxton LJ said: ‘has the Secretary of State asked himself the correct question? The . .
Appeal fromZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-Jan-2008
ZT applied for asylum. It was refused. On her appeal, the respondent certified that the claim was manifestly unfounded. She sought judicial review.
Held: The procedure laid down by rule 353 should have been applied to the further submissions . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of . .
CitedRegina (ZL and VL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Chancellor’s Department CA 24-Jan-2003
The applicants’ claims for asylum had been rejected as bound to fail, and under the new Act, they were to be removed from the UK. If they wanted to appeal, they they would have to do so from outside the jurisdiction. The section had been brought . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
CitedFNG (Ap), Re Judicial Review SCS 6-Feb-2008
The focus of the test in section 94 is primarily on the quality of the claim rather than the prospects of success on an appeal. A court, in deciding whether the Secretary of State was entitled to be satisfied that a claim was clearly unfounded: . .
CitedTozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Apr-2006
Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language . .
CitedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .

Cited by:
CitedBA (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 . .
CitedEM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
CitedRobinson (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, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.280438

WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 9 Nov 2006

The court considered the proper role of the Secretary of state and of the court when failed asylum seekers produced new material arguing that it was a fresh claim. Buxton LJ said: ‘has the Secretary of State asked himself the correct question? The question is not whether the Secretary of State himself thinks that the new claim is a good one or should succeed, but whether there is a realistic prospect of an adjudicator [now an Immigration Judge], applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, thinking that the applicant will be exposed to a real risk of persecution on return . . The Secretary of State of course can, and no doubt logically should, treat his own view of the merits as a starting point for that enquiry; but it is only a starting point in the consideration of a question that is distinctly different from the exercise of the Secretary of State making up his own mind. Second, in addressing that question, both in respect of the evaluation of the facts and in respect of the legal conclusions to be drawn from those facts, has the Secretary of State satisfied the requirements of anxious scrutiny? If the court cannot be satisfied that the answer to both questions is in the affirmative, it will have to grant an application for review of the Secretary of State’ decision’.

Buxton LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1495, [2007] Imm AR 337
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
CitedZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
CitedRobinson (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.245948

Onowu, Regina (on The Application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (Extension of Time for Appealing: Principles) (IJR): UTIAC 31 Mar 2016

UTIAC In considering whether to exercise discretion to extend time for seeking permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, both the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal should apply the approach commended by the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537; Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 and R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1663.

[2016] UKUT 185 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564166

Luu (Periods of Study: Degree Level) Vietnam: UTIAC 7 Mar 2016

UTIAC Periods of study for a qualification below degree level, are capable of being counted as time spent studying at degree level for the purpose of paragraph 245ZX(ha), if the period of study is taught at degree level, and when the qualification itself is added to other periods of study, resulting in the award of a degree.

Chalkley UTJ
[2016] UKUT 181 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Education

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564165

BJ (Singh Explained) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 18 Mar 2016

UTIAC Singh (No immigration decision – jurisdiction) [2013] UKUT 440 (IAC) is authority for proposition that the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal only where there has been an immigration decision. It is not authority for the proposition that where an immigration decision has been made the First-tier Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against such decision unless the SSHD has first complied with her obligations under the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003.

Ockleton VP, O’Connor UTJ
[2016] UKUT 184 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564163

Tukhas (Para 245Hd(F): ‘Appropriate Salary’) Russia: UTIAC 17 Mar 2016

UTIAC The effect of paragraph 14 of Appendix J to the Immigration Rules is that other than where an applicant has contracted weekly hours or is paid an hourly rate, the appropriate salary for the purposes of paragraph 79 of Appendix A is an applicant’s gross annual salary paid by the sponsor employer, subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs 79(i)-(iii) of Appendix A.

Ockelton VP
[2016] UKUT 183 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564169

Rajendran (S117B – Family Life): UTIAC 7 Mar 2016

UTIAC 1. That ‘precariousness’ is a criterion of relevance to family life as well as private life cases is an established part of Article 8 jurisprudence: see e.g. R (Nagre) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) and Jeunesse v Netherlands, app.no.12738/10 (GC).
2. The ‘little weight’ provisions of s.117B(4)(a) and (5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are confined to ‘ private life’ established by a person at a time when their immigration status is unlawful or precarious. However, this does not mean that when answering the ‘public interest question’ posed by s117A(2)-(3) a court or tribunal should disregard ‘precarious family life’ criteria set out in established Article 8 jurisprudence. Given that ss.117A-D considerations are not exhaustive, in certain cases it may be an error of law for a court or tribunal to disregard relevant public interest considerations.

Storey, Perkins UTJJ
[2016] UKUT 138 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564168

Robinson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Paragraph 353 – Waqar Applied) (IJR): UTIAC 16 Feb 2016

UTIAC 1. Notwithstanding the amendments brought about by the Immigration Act 2014 to the types of decisions appealable under s82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, para 353 of HC395 continues to perform a gateway function in respect of access to a right of appeal. Arguments to the contrary, founded upon dicta in BA (Nigeria) v SSHD [2009] UKSC 7, are misconceived because, as explained in ZA (Nigeria) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 926, in BA (Nigeria) immigration decisions (of a type that no longer give rise to a right of appeal) had been made so that there was, on that account, a right of appeal.
2. The argument now advanced, which was not considered by the Upper Tribunal in R (Waqar) v SSHD (statutory appeals/paragraph 353) IJR [2015] 00169 (IAC), founded upon the amendment to the definition of ‘a human rights claim’ found at s113 of the 2002 Act, provided for by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 but not yet implemented, is no basis for doubting that Waqar is correctly decided.
3. Where the respondent rejects further submissions and goes on to conclude that they do not amount to a fresh claim for the purposes of para 353 of HC 395, it is not implicit that the respondent has made a decision to refuse a human rights claim. Properly understood, the respondent has done precisely the opposite and has declined to make a decision at all. To the extent that the respondent has embarked upon an examination of the merits of the further submissions, she is not making a decision but doing no more than equipping herself to follow the para 353 process.

Southern UTJ
[2016] UKUT 133 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564160

SS (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 Apr 2008

Appeal against refusal of asylum claim.
Held: Although this was substantially an appeal on the factual findings, the logical basis of the decision was flawed. The decision was quashed, and remitted for rehearing.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury observed that appeal courts should be particularly wary of interfering with evidential conclusions made in relation to claims for asylum, in which, among other things, the paucity and fragility of the evidence are likely to be acute. On the other hand he added: ‘ . . given the potentially severe, even catastrophic, consequences of a mistaken rejection of an appeal, where fear of ill-treatment (or worse) is alleged, it is plainly right to scrutinise any [such] decision . . very carefully’

Ward, Sedley LJJ Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] EWCA Civ 310
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Mar-2019
The claimant said that he had been tortured in Sri Lanka. The SSHD said the injuries were falsifications, inflicted at the claimant’s request.
Held: KV’s appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for a fresh determination. The Istanbul . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.266558

KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 6 Mar 2019

The claimant said that he had been tortured in Sri Lanka. The SSHD said the injuries were falsifications, inflicted at the claimant’s request.
Held: KV’s appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for a fresh determination. The Istanbul Protocol was to be used: An expert investigating an allegation of torture should recognise the Istanbul Protocol as equally authoritative to the relevant Practice Direction on expert evidence in immigration and asylum cases at the FTT and the tribunal. The tribunal had failed to allow that the self-infliction of wounds is inherently unlikely, and there was ample evidence of its use by the authorities in Sri Lanka.

Lady Hale (President), Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin
[2019] UKSC 10
Bailii, Bailii Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
At UTKV (Scarring – Medical Evidence) UTIAC 23-May-2014
UTIAC 1. When preparing medico-legal reports doctors should not – and should not feel obliged to – reach conclusions about causation of scarring which go beyond their own clinical expertise.
2. Doctors . .
Appeal fromKV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 7-Mar-2017
The appellant sought asylum, claiming that he had been tortured as an ally of the Tamil Tigers. His claims had been disbelieved. . .
CitedSA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 10-Oct-2006
The task for which an asylum-seeker tendered a medical report was to provide ‘a clear statement as to the consistency of old scars found with the history given . . , directed to the particular injuries said to have occurred as a result of the . .
CitedRT (Medical Reports, Causation of Scarring) Sri Lanka IAT 7-Feb-2008
. .
CitedSS (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 10-Apr-2008
Appeal against refusal of asylum claim.
Held: Although this was substantially an appeal on the factual findings, the logical basis of the decision was flawed. The decision was quashed, and remitted for rehearing.
Lord Neuberger of . .
CitedAM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Apr-2012
AM claimed that she had been illegally detained, purportedly pursuant to paragraph 16(2) of the 1971 Act as an illegal immigrant pending removal. . .
CitedMehmet Eren v Turkey ECHR 14-Oct-2008
The Court relied upon the conclusion of a medical report about the consistency of the clinical findings with the applicant’s account of serious ill-treatment while he was in police custody. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.634243

AM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 26 Apr 2012

AM claimed that she had been illegally detained, purportedly pursuant to paragraph 16(2) of the 1971 Act as an illegal immigrant pending removal.

Rix, Moses LJJ, Briggs J
[2012] EWCA Civ 521
Bailii
Immigration Act 1971 16(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Mar-2019
The claimant said that he had been tortured in Sri Lanka. The SSHD said the injuries were falsifications, inflicted at the claimant’s request.
Held: KV’s appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for a fresh determination. The Istanbul . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.453000

KV (Scarring – Medical Evidence): UTIAC 23 May 2014

UTIAC 1. When preparing medico-legal reports doctors should not – and should not feel obliged to – reach conclusions about causation of scarring which go beyond their own clinical expertise.
2. Doctors preparing medico-legal reports for asylum seekers must consider all possible causes of scarring.
3. Where there is a presenting feature of the case that raises self-infliction by proxy (SIBP) as a more than fanciful possibility of the explanation for scarring:-
(i) a medical report adduced on behalf of a claimant will be expected to engage with that issue; it cannot eliminate a priori or routinely the possibility of SIBP; and
(ii) a judicial fact-finder will be expected to address the matter, compatibly with procedural fairness, in deciding whether, on all the evidence, the claimant has discharged the burden of proving that he or she was reasonably likely to have been scarred by torturers against his or her will.
4. A lack of correlation between a claimant’s account and what is revealed by a medical examination of the scarring may enable a medico-legal report to shed some clinical light on the issue of whether SIBP is a real possibility.
5. Whilst the medical literature continues to consider that scarring cannot be dated beyond 6 months from when it was inflicted, there is some medical basis for considering in relation to certain types of cases that its age can be determined up to 2 years.
6. Whilst if best practice is followed medico-legal reports will make a critical evaluation of a claimant’s account of scarring said to have been caused by torture, such reports cannot be equated with an assessment to be undertaken by decision-makers in a legal context in which the burden of proof rests on the claimant and when one of the purposes of questioning is to test a claimant’s evidence so as to decide whether (to the lower standard) it is credible.

Storey, Dawson, Kopieczek UTJJ
[2014] UKUT 230 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal FromKV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 7-Mar-2017
The appellant sought asylum, claiming that he had been tortured as an ally of the Tamil Tigers. His claims had been disbelieved. . .
At UTKV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Mar-2019
The claimant said that he had been tortured in Sri Lanka. The SSHD said the injuries were falsifications, inflicted at the claimant’s request.
Held: KV’s appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for a fresh determination. The Istanbul . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Evidence

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.534244

KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 7 Mar 2017

The appellant sought asylum, claiming that he had been tortured as an ally of the Tamil Tigers. His claims had been disbelieved.

Elias, Patten, Sales LJJ
[2017] WLR(D) 159, [2017] EWCA Civ 119, [2017] Imm AR 1009, [2017] 4 WLR 88
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal FromKV (Scarring – Medical Evidence) UTIAC 23-May-2014
UTIAC 1. When preparing medico-legal reports doctors should not – and should not feel obliged to – reach conclusions about causation of scarring which go beyond their own clinical expertise.
2. Doctors . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromKV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Mar-2019
The claimant said that he had been tortured in Sri Lanka. The SSHD said the injuries were falsifications, inflicted at the claimant’s request.
Held: KV’s appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for a fresh determination. The Istanbul . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.579608

Mandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 14 Oct 2015

The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his application with evidence of his financial means. He said that the application should not have been rejected out of hand, but considered under the Flexibility Policy. Given that chance he would have been able to supply the information needed.
Held: The agency’s refusal of Mr Mandalia’s application was unlawful because, properly interpreted, the process instruction obliged it first to have invited him to repair the deficit in his evidence.
Lord Wilson of Culworth said that the court is the final arbiter of what a policy means.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes
UKSC 2014/0059, [2015] UKSC 59, [2016] INLR 184, [2015] 1 WLR 4546, [2015] WLR(D) 414, [2016] Imm AR 180, [2016] 4 All ER 189
SC, Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
At UTAARodriguez (Flexibility Policy) UTIAC 31-Jan-2013
UTIAC Since August 2009 UKBA has operated a policy relating to the processing and determination of applications under the Points Based System (‘PBS’). This was revised with effect from May 2011. In its policy . .
Appeal fromSecretary of State for The Home Department v Rodriguez CA 20-Jan-2014
The applicants each sought entry under the points based system tostudy. They failed to accompany the applications with the necessary evidence of financial means, though that could have been supplied. The applications were rejected, and the . .
CitedAhmadi (S47 Decision: Validity; Sapkota) Afghanistan UTIAC 14-May-2012
UTIAC (1) A removal decision under s. 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 cannot be made in respect of a person until written notice of the decision to refuse to vary that person’s leave to . .
CitedSecretary of State for The Home Department v Ahmadi CA 9-May-2013
. .
CitedAA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Jan-2007
The asylum claimant had said that he was a minor when his case was first considered, but to the IAT said that at the time of that hearing any error was no longer material since he had now attained 18.
Held: A court should be very reluctant to . .
CitedAlam and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 13-Jul-2012
. .
CitedWL (Congo) and Another, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
CitedPokhriyal v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 5-Dec-2013
Appeals by foreign students agaonst rejection of requests for entry to pursue further studies
Jackson LJ observed of the Pointe Based System Rules that they had ‘now achieved a degree of complexity which even the Byzantine emperors would have . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Gangadeen and Another; Regina v Same ex parte Khan CA 12-Dec-1997
Home Secretary need not always follow own extra statutory concession if reasons given; parent deported though child had residence right.
Home Secretary need not always follow own extra statutory concession if reasons given; parent deported . .
CitedGu v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 20-May-2014
Foskett J held: ‘something cannot be ‘missing’ from a sequence until the sequence itself exists. To my mind that means that at least the start and the end of the sequence must be in evidence for the sequence to exist. Something missing from it can . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Gangadeen Admn 15-Nov-1996
The Court should not intervene in a minister’s decision in application of his own policy unless he disregarded it, or the decision was inherently irrational. . .
CitedKambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
CitedLumba (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 . .
CitedRegina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .

Cited by:
CitedLee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jul-2016
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed . .
CitedHemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
CitedFinucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.553308

SA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 Oct 2006

The task for which an asylum-seeker tendered a medical report was to provide ‘a clear statement as to the consistency of old scars found with the history given . . , directed to the particular injuries said to have occurred as a result of the torture or other ill treatment relied on as evidence of persecution’.

[2006] EWCA Civ 1302
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Mar-2019
The claimant said that he had been tortured in Sri Lanka. The SSHD said the injuries were falsifications, inflicted at the claimant’s request.
Held: KV’s appeal succeeded, and the case was remitted for a fresh determination. The Istanbul . .
LandmarkRT (Medical Reports, Causation of Scarring) Sri Lanka IAT 7-Feb-2008
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.245269

Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 22 Nov 2005

The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants asserted that a legitimate expectation had been created.
Held: The abiding principle which underpins the legitimate expectation cases is the court’s insistence that public power should not be abused. The applicant had not relied on the policy until the error had been made, and no legitimate expectation had been created. ‘Where a public authority has issued a promise or adopted a practice which represents how it proposes to act in a given area, the law will require the promise or practice to be honoured unless there is good reason not to do so. What is the principle behind this proposition? It is not far to seek. It is said to be grounded in fairness, and no doubt in general terms that is so. I would prefer to express it rather more broadly as a requirement of good administration, by which public bodies ought to deal straightforwardly and consistently with the public.’ and ‘a public body’s promise or practice as to future conduct may only be denied, and thus the standard I have expressed may only be departed from, in circumstances where to do so is the public body’s legal duty, or is otherwise, to use a now familiar vocabulary, a proportionate response (of which the court is the judge, or the last judge) having regard to a legitimate aim pursued by the public body in the public interest. The principle that good administration requires public authorities to be held to their promises would be undermined if the law did not insist that any failure or refusal to comply is objectively justified as a proportionate measure in the circumstances. ‘
Laws LJ continued: ‘ . . there is every reason to articulate the limits of this requirement – to describe what may count as good reason to depart from it – as we have come to articulate the limits of other constitutional principles overtly found in the European convention. Accordingly a public body’s promise or practice as to future conduct may only be denied, and thus the standard that I have expressed may only be departed from, in circumstances where to do so is the public body’s legal duty, or is otherwise, to use a now familiar vocabulary, a proportionate response (of which the court is the judge, or the last judge) having regard to a legitimate aim pursued by the public body in the public interest. The principle that good administration requires public authorities to be held to their promises would be undermined if the law did not insist that any failure or refusal to comply is objectively justified as a proportionate measure in the circumstances . .’

Laws LJ, Thomas LJ, Nelson J
[2005] EWCA Civ 1363, Times 14-Dec-2005
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 72(2)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Governor HM Prison Brockhill, ex parte Michelle Carol Evans (No 2) CA 19-Jun-1998
The plaintiff was serving a sentence of imprisonment. Her detention was correctly calculated in accordance with the law as understood. That method was later disapproved when the Divisional Court laid down (everyone has assumed correctly) a different . .
Appeal fromRegina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2-Dec-2002
The Claimant was a Tamil from Sri Lanka claiming asylum. He was married in 1991; his wife was also Tamil. In 1995 his claim for asylum in Germany failed. What then happened was disputed. The Claimant said that he voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka, . .
See AlsoSecretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar CA 19-Jun-2003
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
CitedAbdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 5-Dec-2003
. .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur HL 20-Dec-2000
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
CitedRegina (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Sep-2001
When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the . .
CitedSamaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
CitedHuang v The Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Mar-2005
The adjudicator’s function is effectively to retake the Home Secretary’s decision. In doing so he will have regard to the Home Secretary’s policy in relation to the deportation of offenders as a material fact but not as a substitute for or a fetter . .
CitedRegina (Yaser Mahmood) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 9-Aug-2001
The Home Secretary had served notice that the applicant was an illegal immigrant, and liable to deportation. An order had been made for the cross examination of the applicant. He had come to England to study, but soon dropped his immediate plans. He . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State ex parte Khan CA 4-Apr-1984
The Secretary of State had refused an entry clearance for a child to be allowed into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption by the applicant, but had done so upon grounds nowhere mentioned in a Home Office circular letter apparently setting . .
CitedClarke v London Borough of Enfield CA 9-May-2002
Where a decision of a public decision-maker is quashed and the decision falls to be re-taken, it will or at least may be re-taken in light of the legal and factual context prevailing at the time the fresh decision is made. . .
CitedBirkdale District Electric Supply Co. Ltd v The Corporation of Southport 1926
The appellants, having bound themselves not to exercise their discretion in the raising of electricity prices, were held not to have incompetently fettered their discretion, bearing in mind the commercial purposes for which the discretion was . .
CitedRegina v Liverpool Corporation ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association CA 1972
A number of taxi cab owners challenged a decision of the Council to increase the numbers of hackney cabs operating in the city. At a public meeting with the council prior to the decision, the chairman had given a public undertaking that the numbers . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
MentionedIn Re Findlay, in re Hogben HL 1985
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person . .
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston HL 1984
Duty of Fairness to taxpayer – Written Assurance
The applicant was assured by the Inland Revenue that it would not raise further inquiries on certain tax affairs if he agreed to forgo interest relief which he had claimed and to pay a certain sum in capital gains tax.
Held: Where the . .
CitedEx parte Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd 1995
Judicial review was requested of a decision of the Minister to declare a moratorium on the permitted transfer of certain fishing licences.
Held: The request failed. Sedley J put forward a test for what makes a claim for a legitimate . .
CitedRashid, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Jun-2005
The Home Secretary appealed against a grant of a judicial review to the respondent who had applied for asylum. The court had found that two other asylum applicants had been granted leave to remain on similar facts and on the appellants, and that it . .
CitedRegina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
CitedRegina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department and Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Risley ex parte Hargreaves, Briggs and Green CA 20-Nov-1996
No sufficient expectation which could form the basis of a judicial review arose from an agreement for prison home leave which was later denied. The only legitimate expectation of the prisoners was to have their applications individually considered . .

Cited by:
CitedX, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School Admn 21-Feb-2007
The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a . .
CitedLumba (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 . .
CitedWheeler, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Prime Minister and Another Admn 2-May-2008
The applicant sought leave to bring judicial review of the prime minister’s decsion not to hold a referendum on the ratification of the treaty of Lisbon.
Held: The claimant had arguable points under the 2000 Act and otherwise, and permission . .
CitedBirks, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 25-Sep-2014
The claimant police officer sought judicial review of a decision to continue his suspension. He had been investigated and cleared after a death in custody. He sought to join the Church of England Ministry and was offered a post. He was re-assured . .
CitedMandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .
CitedHemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
CitedFinucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.235238

Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 17 Jun 2004

The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious faiths.
Held: A distinction was to be made between domestic cases involving actions within a convention country, and foreign cases which did not. Soering showed that in appropriate factual circumstances, a claimant could rely upon art 3 in a foreign case.
‘I find it hard to think that a person could successfully resist expulsion in reliance on article 9 without being entitled either to asylum on the ground of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of religion or personal opinion or to resist expulsion in reliance on article 3. But I would not rule out such a possibility in principle.’
Article 8 may be engaged in cases of a real risk of a flagrant violation of an individual’s article 8 rights on deportation, though a high threshold test will always have to be satisfied in non-article 3 cases. The Convention is an international instrument the correct interpretation of which can be authoritatively expounded only by the Strasbourg court.
Courts should, in the absence of some special circumstances, follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court. Lord Bingham said: ‘the Convention is an international instrument, the correct interpretation of which can be authoritatively founded by the Strasbourg courts.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2004] UKHL 26, Times 18-Jun-2004, [2004] 3 WLR 23, [2004] 2 AC 323, [2004] INLR 381, [2004] UKHRR 995, [2004] 3 All ER 785
House of Lords, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromAhsan Ullah, Thi Lien Do v Special Adjudicator, Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Dec-2002
The appellants challenged refusal of asylum, claiming that their return to countries which did not respect their religion, would infringe their right to freedom of religious expression. It was accepted that the applicants did not have a sufficient . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
CitedAttorney General for the Dominion of Canada v Cain PC 1906
Lord Atkinson said: ‘One of the rights possessed by the supreme power in every State is the right to refuse to permit an alien to enter that State, to annex what conditions it pleases to the permission to enter it and to expel or deport from the . .
CitedChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
CitedVilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Oct-1991
Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s . .
CitedD v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
In the circumstances of the case, where the applicant was in the advanced stage of a terminal illness (AIDS), to implement a decision by the respondent to remove the appellant to St Kitts in the West Indies would be a violation of his rights under . .
CitedBoultif v Switzerland ECHR 2-Aug-2001
The applicant complained under Article 8 that the Swiss authorities had not renewed his residence permit, after which he had been separated from his wife, a Swiss citizen and who could not be expected to follow him to Algeria. Switzerland argued . .
CitedBensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .
CitedAbdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
CitedSoering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
CitedHilal v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Mar-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award . .
CitedJabari v Turkey ECHR 11-Jul-2000
A ‘rigorous scrutiny’ was to be conducted of a claim that an individual’s deportation to a third country would expose him to treatment prohibited by Article 3, before it could be rejected.
Held: ‘If the State is to avoid breach of Article 3 by . .
CitedDehwari v The Netherlands ECHR 27-Apr-2000
This was a foreign case in Human Rights law terms, concerned with the applicant’s expulsion to Iran. His Art 2 claim failed on the facts. But the claim was not rejected in principle, and having referred to the case law on article 3 the Commission . .
CitedCruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .
CitedLoizidou v Turkey ECHR 23-Mar-1995
(Preliminary objections) The ECHR considered the situation in northern Cyprus when it was asked as to Turkey’s preliminary objections to admissibility: ‘although Article 1 sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ . .
CitedAhmed v Austria ECHR 17-Dec-1996
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and . .
CitedDrozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .
CitedM A R v United Kingdom ECHR 1996
(Commission) The applicants complained under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, of their expulsion from the United Kingdom.
Held: The complaints were admissible, and called for examination on the merits. (Later settled) . .
CitedOuld Barar v Sweden ECHR 1999
The Court found the applicant’s complaint under article 4 (as well as his complaints under articles 2 and 3) to be inadmissible on the facts, but recognised ‘that the expulsion of a person to a country where there is an officially recognised regime . .
CitedBankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .
CitedMoustaquim v Belgium ECHR 18-Feb-1991
The applicant was a Moroccan national who arrived in Belgium in 1965 when he was aged under 2. In 1984, nineteen years later, after a career of juvenile crime, he was deported, but the deportation order was suspended in 1989 and he returned to . .
CitedTomic v United Kingdom ECHR 14-Oct-2003
The applicant sought to resist his expulsion from the UK.
Held: ‘The Court does not exclude that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an expulsion decision in circumstances where the person being expelled has suffered or . .
CitedMamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v Turkey ECHR 6-Feb-2003
A retrospective complaint of extradition to Uzbekistan was made. The applicants sought to resist their extradition from Turkey to Uzbekistan, saying they would be tortured.
Held: Convention states must comply with orders made by the European . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedRazaghi v Sweden ECHR 11-Mar-2003
The applicant resisted expulsion to Iran on a number of grounds arising from his adultery in Iran and his conversion to Christianity. He relied on article 2 and article 1 of the Sixth Protocol, on article 3, on article 6 and on article 9.
CitedHorvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
CitedHolub and another v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 20-Dec-2000
The claimants appealed against a refusal of their request for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to grant them exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. If returned to Poland the daughter of the family would face . .
CitedSepet and Bulbil v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to . .
CitedHenao v Netherlands ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The applicant was a national of Colombia. While serving a prison sentence in Holland for a drugs offence he was diagnosed HIV-positive. He sought to resist expulsion to Columbia on Article 3 grounds.
Held: ‘ . . the Court considers that, . .
CitedDevaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department IAT 2003
The tribunal asked as to the relevance of the possible mistreatment of the applicant if returned to his home country: ‘The reason why flagrant denial or gross violation is to be taken into account is that it is only in such a case – where the right . .
CitedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
CitedEinhorn v France ECHR 16-Oct-2001
The applicant had resisted extradition from France: ‘ . . the Court reiterates that it cannot be ruled out that an issue might exceptionally be raised under article 6 of the Convention by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive . .
CitedZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 2002
The court declined to rule out the possibility that it would be an infringement of a claimant’s human right to deport him, a known homosexual, to a country where he would be persecuted for it. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
IncorporatedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedGovernment of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2) HL 22-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the . .
CitedRegina on the Application of B and others v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicant children had been detained in immigration camps in Australia. They escaped and sought refuge in the British High Commission in Melbourne and claimed diplomatic asylum. They claimed in damages after being returned to the authorities in . .
CitedAl-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
CitedBoughton, Regina (on the Application Of) v Her Majesty’s Treasury Admn 25-Jul-2005
The applicants sought to control the sums they paid by way of taxation so as not to contribute to non peaceful objects.
Held: Both English law and human rights jurisprudence would prevent the claim, and the application for a review failed. . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
CitedAxon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
CitedKay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
CitedBermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
CitedBaiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
CitedRegina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedAhmad and Aswat v United States of America Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
CitedMurray v Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD 7-Aug-2007
The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
Held: The . .
CitedOthman (Abu Qatada) (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Apr-2008
The claimant appealed an order for his deportation back to Jordan, saying that if returned there was a real risk that he would face a trial based on evidence obtained by torture.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A foreign national could not be . .
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
CitedCountryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
CitedEM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
CitedBarclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
CitedWellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .
CitedAl-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 19-Dec-2008
The two applicants had been detained by the armed forces in Iraq suspected of murder. They sought release before being transferred to the civilian authorities for trial saying that the trials would not be fair. The respondent denied that the . .
CitedRB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
CitedSecretary of State for Defence v Smith, Regina (on the Application of) CA 18-May-2009
The soldier had died of heatstroke after exercises in Iraq. The Minister appealed against a finding that the circumstances of his death required an investigation compliant with Article 2 human rights, saying that he was not subject to such . .
CitedBary and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Aug-2009
The defendants resisted extradition to the US to face charges of conspiracy to murder US citizens, saying that as suspected terrorists the likely prison conditions in which they would be held would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or . .
CitedA, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service SC 9-Dec-2009
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it . .
CitedRodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
CitedNorris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
CitedTomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council SC 17-Feb-2010
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
CitedSmith and Others v Ministry of Defence QBD 30-Jun-2011
Claims were made after the deaths of British troops on active service in Iraq. In one case the deaths were from detonations of improvised explosive devices, and on others as a result of friendly fire. It was said that there had been a foreseeable . .
CitedAmbrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
CitedAmbrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
CitedSugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
CitedHaney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
CitedCommissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
CitedElan-Cane, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 10-Mar-2020
No right to non-gendered passport
The claimant sought judicial review of the police of the respondent’s policy requiring a passport applicant to identify themselves as either male or female. The claimant began life as a female, but, with surgery, asserted a non-gendered identity. . .
CitedPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .
CitedCrowter and Others, Regina (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care Admn 23-Sep-2021
Foetus has no Established Human Rights
The Claimants sought a declaration that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), as well as some other remedies. The claimant had Down’s Syndrome, and complained the . .
CitedHallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .
CitedFinucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.198186

Amougou Mbarga, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Apr 2012

The Claimant seeks a declaration that his detention by the Secretary of State for the Home Department [‘SSHD’] was unlawful from 22 October 2010 to 5 March 2012, in addition seeking damaging and costs.

[2012] EWHC 1081 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.453013

Commission v Poland C-715/17: ECJ 2 Apr 2020

Emergency Situation Characterised By A Sudden Influx of Third-Country Nationals Into Certain Member States – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 – Article 5(2) and 5(4) to 5(11) of each of those decisions – Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece – Emergency situation characterised by a sudden influx of third-country nationals into certain Member States – Relocation of those nationals to other Member States – Relocation procedure – Obligation on the Member States to indicate at regular intervals, and at least every three months, the number of applicants for international protection who can be relocated swiftly to their territory – Consequent obligations leading to actual relocation – Interests of the Member States linked to national security and public order – Possibility for a Member State to rely on Article 72 TFEU in order not to apply EU legal acts of a binding nature

C-715/17, [2020] EUECJ C-715/17, [2020] 4 WLR 75, [2020] WLR(D) 226, ECLI:EU:C:2020:257, [2019] EUECJ C-715/17_O
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii
European

European, Immigration

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.654970

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Said: CA 6 May 2016

The court was asked whether the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) was right to conclude that the deportation of the respondent, AS, to Somalia would violate his rights guaranteed by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Christopher Clarke, Sharp, Burnett LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 442
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563144

SB (Jamaica) and Abd (A Minor), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 22 Apr 2016

Appeal against the decision of Upper Tribunal dismissing the Appellant’s application for judicial review of decisions of the Home Secretary in which she granted the Appellant 30 months’ leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules subject to a condition of no recourse to public funds

Moore-Bick, Sales LJJ, Sir Stanley Burnton
[2016] EWCA Civ 400
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563078

Cyrus, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Apr 2016

‘The Claimant seeks interim relief as part of a claim for judicial review. The Order sought is an Order that the Defendant should grant or reinstate the Claimant’s indefinite leave to remain [‘ILR’] in the UK pending the resolution of his claim and his anticipated appeal against a decision of 8 April 2016 to refuse his human rights claim of 19 August 2015 and to maintain the decision to deport the Claimant from the United Kingdom.’

Irwin J
[2016] EWHC 918 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562900

O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Apr 2016

The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending treatment in the community. She said that the Francis case was wrongly decided.
Held: Her appeal failed. The treatment provided under the additional stress of detention would no doubt be more difficult, but still might be deemed satisfactory in the circumstances and context, and would not be satisfactory in another context.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 19, [2016] 1 WLR 1717, [2016] WLR(D) 222, [2016] INLR 494, [2016] 4 All ER 1003, UKSC 2014/0227
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD
Immigration Act 1971
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromO v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 17-Jul-2014
The court was asked whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could continue lawfully to hold the appellant, O, in immigration detention notwithstanding a change in the diagnosis of her mental illness and medical opinion that she should . .
At AdmnO v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 3-Apr-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s continued detention pending deportation of her after her diagnosis with a medical condition.
Held: Lang J refused her permission to apply for judicial review. She had to decide: . .
CitedFrancis, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 23-May-2014
Appeal against rejection of claim for damages after alleged unlawful detention in immigration detention centre pending examination of immigration status. . .
CitedRegina v Kluxen CACD 14-May-2010
The court considered the occasions on which a court should recommend deportation after completion of a prison sentence and how this might differ between EU and non-EU nationals.
Held: Since the 2007 it is not appropriate to recommend . .
CitedRaissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
CitedLumba (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 . .
CitedZS (Jamaica) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 13-Dec-2012
On a review of the legality of the Home Secretary’s application of a policy, the nature of the review is the traditional public law inquiry into whether the application of it was rational. . .
CitedDas, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others CA 28-Jan-2014
The claimant said that his continued immigration detention became unlawful on his being diagnosed with a mental health condition.
Held: Beatson LJ discussed the meaning of the phrase ‘satisfactory management’ He said he as inclined to accept . .
CitedOgunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .
CitedKhera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
CitedRegina 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 by:
CitedVarious Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc QBD 16-May-2018
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562799

Blue Air – Airline Management Solutions: ECJ 30 Apr 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of ??freedom, security and justice – Border checks, asylum and immigration – Decision No 565/2014 / EU – Simplified system for checking persons at external borders – Third-country national holding a temporary residence permit issued by a Member State – Article 3 – Recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas – Invocability of a decision against a State – Direct effect – Recognition of a private law entity as emanating from the State – Conditions – Regulation ( EC) No 562/2006 – Schengen Borders Code – Article 13 – Refusal of entry into the territory of a Member State – Obligation to state reasons – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of refusal boarding – Article 2 (j) – Denied boarding based on the allegedly inadequate nature of the travel documents – Article 15 – Obligations incumbent on air carriers with regard to passengers – Inadmissibility of the exemptions provided for in the contract of transport or other documents’ under j) – Denied boarding based on the allegedly inadequate nature of the travel documents – Article 15 – Obligations on air carriers with regard to passengers – Inadmissibility of the exemptions provided for in the contract of carriage or other documents ‘under j) – Denied boarding based on the allegedly inadequate nature of the travel documents – Article 15 – Obligations on air carriers with regard to passengers – Inadmissibility of the exemptions provided for in the contract of carriage or other documents

C-584/18, [2020] EUECJ C-584/18, [2019] EUECJ C-584/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Immigration

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654963

Mirza v Bevandorlasi es Allampolgarsagi Hivatal (Borders, Asylum And Immigration): ECJ 17 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Preliminary reference – urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Article 3, Paragraph 3 – Right member States to send an applicant to a safe third country – Article 18 – the member State responsible Bonds to consider the application in case of take back the applicant – 2013 Directive / 32 / EU – common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Consideration of an application for international protection

[2016] EUECJ C-695/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:188,
Bailii
Citing:
OpinionMirza v Bevandorlasi es Allampolgarsagi Hivatal (Borders, Asylum And Immigration) ECJ 8-Mar-2016
(Advocate General’s Opinion) Area of freedom, security and justice – Borders, asylum and immigration – Regulation No 604/2013 (Dublin III) – Examination of an application for international protection – Conditions for the exercise of the Member . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561994

NCN v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 1 Mar 2016

Application for permission to appeal an order dismissing the appellant’s judicial review proceedings against a series of decisions by the Secretary of State not to treat further representations by the appellant as fresh asylum or human rights claims after dismissal of her original asylum, humanitarian and human rights claim by the Immigration Judge in November 2011.

Briggs LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 307
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561623

Santos, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 23 Mar 2016

‘The Claimant applies for judicial review of the Defendant’s failure to issue him with an EEA residence card, pursuant to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (‘the EEA Regulations 2006’) and Directive 2004/38/EC (‘the Directive’), and the Defendant’s decision to detain him between January and June 2012, with a view to removing him from the United Kingdom (‘UK’). He claims damages under both domestic and EU law.’

Lang DBE J
[2016] EWHC 609 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561489

OP and others (Roma Ethnicity) Czech Republic CG: IAT 9 Mar 2001

‘any claim that Czech Roma are by reason of their ethnicity alone entitled to refugee status is unsustainable and that each case must be looked at on its own facts to see whether those facts show to the relevant standard that the specific claimant has a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Following Horvath, it is likely that those who can succeed in showing such a fear on the basis of feared actions of non state actors will be the exception since there is currently in place in the Czech Republic a system of criminal law which offers effective protection to Czech citizens generally, including Czech Roma. ‘

[2001] UKIAT 00001
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.222489

Tarakhil v The Home Office: QBD 21 Oct 2015

The claimant, Zia Ul Haque Tarakhil claims damages for false imprisonment and wrongful detention and for the psychiatric consequences of that detention and aggravated damages for the high handed way that he was detained and in which his claim has been dealt with throughout by the defendant.

HH Judge Anthony Thornton QC
[2015] EWHC 2845 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.554091

D4, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 30 Jul 2021

Whether statutory instrument used to deprive claimant of citizenship was ultra vires.

Chamberlain J
[2021] EWHC 2179 (Admin), [2021] WLR(D) 433
Bailii, WLRD
British Nationality Act 1981 40(2)(5) 41(1), British Nationality (General) Regulations 2003 10(4), British Nationality (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 3
England and Wales

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.666441