[2015] EWCA Civ 662
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550175

AIT The applicant seeks judicial review in respect of part of a decision (‘the impugned decision’) by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the respondent’ or ‘the SOSHD’) dated 20 November 2014, contained in a decision letter of that date, whereby the respondent certified his removal from the UK (‘the certification decision’) pending determination of his appeal against a decision to deport him on grounds of public policy following recent convictions for driving while disqualified and using a vehicle without insurance. The respondent has made this impugned decision on foot of the amendments made to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (‘the 2006 Regulations’) specifically with reference to Regulation 24AA of the 2006 Regulations.

Gillen LJ
[2015] NIQB 58
Bailii
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
Northern Ireland

Immigration

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.549858

Lord Justice Peter Jackson,
Lord Justice Nugee,
And,
Lord Justice William Davis
[2021] EWCA Civ 1876
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.670346

[2015] EWCA Civ 684
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549762

The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, after an unsuccessful statutory appeal after he had become 17, that the Home Secretary’s failures properly to investigate his claim with the absence of possible evidence in his favour should lead to a presumption of credibility in his favour.
The principle established in the case of Ravichandran is sound; asylum appeals should be determined by reference to the situation at the time of the appellate decision rather than by reference to the situation at the time of the original decision, and with no presumption of credibility.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKSC 40, [2015] Imm AR 1162, [2015] WLR(D) 272, [2015] 4 All ER 34, [2015] INLR 647, [2015] 1 WLR 3083, UKSC 2014/0047
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video summary
Directive 2003/9/EC, Directive 2005/85/EC
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – TN v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 16-Dec-2011
‘The claimant, an unaccompanied child, challenges the Secretary of State’s decision of 12 November 2010 refusing his claim for asylum and for humanitarian protection and granting him discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a shorter . .
Appeal from – AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 11-Dec-2013
. .
Appeal from – TN (Afghanistan) and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Dec-2013
The applicants had arrived in the UK as minors fleeing Afghanistan. They now challenged grant of a discretionary leave to remain limited to expire withiin one year. . .
Cited – Samba Diouf v Minister of Labour, Employment and Immigration ECJ 28-Jul-2011
ECJ Directive 2005/85/EC – Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status – ‘Decision taken on [the] application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of . .
Cited – Vilvarajah 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 . .
Cited – FA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 18-Jun-2010
The claimant had applied both for asylum and humanitarian protection. Both claims had been rejected, but he was given leave to stay in the UK for a further year. He now sought to appeal not only against the rejection of the asylum claim but also the . .
Cited – Samba Diouf v Minister of Labour, Employment and Immigration ECJ 28-Jul-2011
ECJ Directive 2005/85/EC – Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status – ‘Decision taken on [the] application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of . .
Cited – KA (Afghanistan) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 25-Jul-2012
Child asylum applicants will be treated as young people and their whole history will be considered. . .
Cited – Vadim Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Limited PC 27-Mar-2003
PC (Isle of Man) The petitioner sought disclosure of trust documents, as a beneficiary. Disclosure had been refused as he had not been a named beneficiary.
Held: Times had moved on, and trust documents had . .
Cited – Bensaid 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 . .
Cited – D v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-1997
The applicant, an AIDS sufferer, resisted his removal to St Kitts where lack of medical treatment would hasten his death.
Held: The deportation of a convicted person suffering from Aids to a country with less care facilities was inhuman or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549437

Claim for judicial review of the decision by the Secretary of State, refusing to treat further representations made on the claimant’s behalf as a fresh asylum claim.

Her Honour Judge Hindley QC
[2009] EWHC 2584 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.377838

Application for permission to appeal – doctor from Iraq who has converted from the Sunni Muslim religion to Christianity.

[2008] EWCA Civ 468
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.267904

IAT Dependent parent – Income from parent’s farms distributed by custom to sons in Pakistan – Claim that mainly dependent on sponsoring son in United Kingdom because of this distribution – Whether ‘mainly dependent’ implies necessarily so dependent – Cmnd 4298, para 42.

Sir Derek Hilton (President),
[1973] UKIAT 00001
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.279082

The Master of the Rolls Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) Lord Justice Buxton
[2005] EWCA Civ 1655
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.238509

Mitting J
[2003] EWHC 1183 (Admin)
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 73(8)
England and Wales
Citing:
Disapproved – Regina (Vemenac) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Jul-2002
The applicant was a Serb from Croatia whose application for asylum was refused. On appeal to an adjudicator he also raised human rights issues but his appeal was dismissed. He later applied again for leave to remain on the basis of his relationship . .
Disapproved – Regina (Ngamguem) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2003
. .
Cited – Regina (Ngamguem) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 8-Jul-2002
The applicant a native of Cameroon, had sought asylum. He was refused. His appeal to an adjudicator was dismissed, and directions for his removal were given. Some months later his solicitors submitted what they said was new evidence. They asked for . .
Appealed to – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Sandhu, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 16-Sep-2003
The claimant challenged the refusal of a right to appeal against the decision refusing hs asylum appeal. He had failed to attend two hearings. The respondent gave his certificate under section 73 that in his opinion the only purpose of the appeal . .
Appeal from – Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.185325

[2003] EWHC 753 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.185561

Appeal against order for removal.

Walden-Smith HHJ
[2015] EWHC 2570 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.552361

Challenge to respondent’s decision that claimants application for asylum was clearly unfounded.

His Honour Judge Gilbart QC,
Honorary Recorder of Manchester,
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
[2012] EWHC 2575 (Admin)
Bailii
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(2)
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.464852

[2014] EWCA Civ 1327
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.548098

UTIAC The first question to be addressed in an appeal against refusal to grant entry clearance as a visitor where only human rights grounds are available is whether article 8 of the ECHR is engaged at all. If it is not, which will not infrequently be the case, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to embark upon an assessment of the decision of the ECO under the rules and should not do so. If article 8 is engaged, the Tribunal may need to look at the extent to which the claimant is said to have failed to meet the requirements of the rule because that may inform the proportionality balancing exercise that must follow.[1] Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 112 (IAC) is not authority for any contrary proposition.
As compliance with para 41 of HC 395 is not a ground of appeal to be decided by the Tribunal, any findings concerning that will carry little weight, especially if based upon arguments advanced only by the appellant. If the appellant were to make a fresh application for entry clearance the ECO will, if requested to do so, have regard to the assessment carried out by the judge but will not be bound by those findings to treat the appellant as a person who, at least at the date of the appeal hearing, met the requirements of paragraph 41.

Southern UTJ
[2015] UKUT 261 (IAC)
Bailii
European Convention n Huma Rights 8
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547348

The applicants, who are brothers, have been granted permission to bring a judicial review of the decision of the respondent to refuse to grant them leave to remain as Tier 1 Entrepreneurs.

Southern UTJ
[2015] UKUT 191 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547347

UTIAC (i) An application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom must comply with the requirements of paragraph A34 and all material provisions of paragraphs 34A – 34K of the Immigration Rules.
(ii) Between June 2013 and August 2014, Tier 4 applicants had the choice of submitting their applications either on line or by the ‘Print and Send’ mechanism.
(iii) The correct construction of the Rules is as follows:
(a) The first of these options required the submission of the completed application form on line and the provision of supporting documents by post.
(b) The second option, ‘Print and Send’, required the applicant to print the completed application form and send it, with accompanying supporting documents, by post. The ‘Print and Send’ instruction does not amount to an on-line application.
(iv) A failure to comply with the requirements in 34A (per paragraph 34C) invalidates the application.

McCloskey J, P UT
[2015] UKUT 270 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547346

UTIAC 1. In the great majority of cases where the court decides that the impugned decision is contaminated by some public law misdemeanour, the remedy granted is a quashing order whereby the respondent is obliged to make a fresh decision, taking into account the judgment of the court.
2. The remedy of a mandatory order is rarely granted. It is appropriate only in cases where it is clear to the court that the respondent is legally obliged to take a certain course of action, normally involving the conferral of some benefit or advantage on the challenging party, with no choice or discretion. The course that the respondent is ordered by the court to take in a mandatory order must be ‘the sole result that is legally permissible’.

McCloskey J, P UT
[2015] UKUT 226 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547345

UTIAC (i) Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 empowers the Upper Tribunal to take such action as it considers just, which may include striking out a party’s case under rule 8, where there has been a failure to comply with a requirement of the rules, a practice direction or a tribunal direction.
(ii) Under rule 8 proceedings are automatically struck out in the event of failure to comply with an order or direction which specifies that non-compliance will attract this sanction, viz an ‘unless’ order. In other cases the power to strike out is discretionary.
(iii) In considering whether to exercise its discretionary strike out power under rule 8, the main factors which the Upper Tribunal will weigh are the interests of the administration of justice; whether there has been a prompt application for relief; whether the failure was intentional; whether there is a good explanation for the failure; the number and importance of multiple failures; whether the failure was caused by the party or his legal representative; whether the trial date will be jeopardised by the grant of relief; the effect on every party of the relevant failure; and the effect on every party of granting relief. Further, the interests of the administration of justice will be weighed and applied.
(iv) In addition, the Tribunal will apply the following principles: public authorities and private litigants are to be treated alike; excessive work burdens will rarely excuse a defaulting solicitor; and the mere factor of a party being unrepresented does not constitute good reason. In asylum and humanitarian protection claims, particular care must be taken to ensure that appeals are not frustrated by a failure on the part of a party’s legal representative to comply with time limits.
(v) In considering the exercise of its discretionary strike out power under rule 8, the Tribunal will be mindful of the draconian nature of such orders and will take into account the availability of any other appropriate and adequate sanction such as a wasted costs order under rule 10(3). Repeated defaults will almost invariably be considered more serious than a single act of non-compliance. In every case the Tribunal will consider the question of whether its process is being misused.
(vi) In an application under rule 8(5) to reinstate a struck out case, the main factors to be considered are the reason for the failure which gave rise to the strike out order, whether there has been any undue delay in applying for reinstatement and whether reinstatement would prejudice the other party.
(vii) The values of efficiency and expedition will be promoted and due observance of the overriding objective will be enhanced by adherence to the principles and standards of pleading rehearsed in [28] – [32].
(viii) In judicial review cases, applications to amend so as to enable a new or later decision to be challenged must be made proactively and timeously. Such applications will be determined on their merits and giving effect to the overriding objective.

McCloskey J, P UT
[2015] UKUT 227 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547344

UTIAC (i) Where it is contended that either of the duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 has been breached, the onus rests on the appellant and the civil standard of the balance of probabilities applies. There is no onus on the Secretary of State.
(ii) As regards the second of the statutory duties [the need to have regard to statutory guidance promulgated by the Secretary of State], it is not necessary for the decision letter to make specific reference to the statutory guidance.
(iii) The statutory guidance prescribes a series of factors and principles which case workers and decision makers must consider.
(iv) Where the Tribunal finds that there has been a breach of either of the section 55 duties, one of the options available is remittal to the Secretary of State for reconsideration and fresh decision.
(v) In considering the appropriate order, Tribunals should have regard to their adjournment and case management powers, together with the overriding objective. They will also take into account the facilities available to the Secretary of State under the statutory guidance, the desirability of finality and the undesirability of undue delay. If deciding not to remit the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is sufficiently equipped to make an adequate assessment of the best interests of any affected child.

McCloskey J, P UT, Perkins UTJ
[2015] UKUT 223 (IAC)
Bailii
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547339

Judicial review of a decision of the respondent of 20 September 2013 rejecting an application he made on 8 August 2013 for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student. The respondent refused the application on the ground that the applicant had an outstanding appeal against an earlier decision of 14 January 2013 and he was therefore restricted from making a fresh application for leave whilst his appeal was outstanding in accordance with s.3C of the Immigration Act 1971

Gill UTJ
[2015] UKUT 190 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547341

‘judicial review against the decision of the respondent to refuse to accept that, on arrival in the United Kingdom on 4 February 2014, he was then a child. ‘

Southern UTJ
[2015] UKUT 171 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547342

UTIAC 1. Where the Immigration Rules are silent as to interpretation, it may be necessary to refer to the Children Act 1989 (as amended) and other family legislation in order to construe those parts of the Rules which provide a route to entry clearance or leave to remain as a parent.
2. ‘Access’ in the latest version of the Immigration Rules means the same as ‘contact’ in the previous paragraph 284A. Neither term is now used in the Family Court where Child Arrangements Orders are made to regulate ‘(a) with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact; and (b) where a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact with any person.’
3. The expression ‘access rights’ in paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i) may refer equally to parents who have ‘indirect’ access to a child by means of letters, telephone calls etc as well as to those who spend time with a child (‘direct’ access). A parent may also have ‘access rights’ where there is no court order at all, for example, where parents agree access arrangements (the ‘no order’ principle; section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 (as amended)).
4. Having satisfied the requirements of paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i), an appellant must still prove that he/she ‘is taking and intend to continue to take an active role in the child’s upbringing'(paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (ii)). Whether he/she will be able to do so will depend upon the evidence rather than the nature of the ‘access rights.’ However, it is likely to be unusual that a person having only ‘indirect’ access rights will be able to satisfy this provision. In some cases, Tribunals may need to examine the reasons why the Family Court has ordered ‘indirect’ rather then ‘direct’ access.

Clive Lane UTJ
[2015] UKUT 225 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547338

Application for judicial review raisings the issue of when, on removal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of a dependent child, born in the United Kingdom along with his adult parent, there needs to be an independent review of the merits of the child’s distinct asylum and human rights claims.

Cranston J, Reeds UTJ
[2015] UKUT 242 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547326

Application seeking to bring challenge to the Respondent’s ‘failure to reconsider [the Respondent’s] decision to impose a no recourse [to public funds] condition’ on the leave granted to the Applicant.

O’Connor UTJ
[2015] UKUT 139 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547325

Challenges brought by a national of Chile against the decisions of the respondent, Secretary of State for the Home Department, refusing the applicant leave to remain in the UK. The last two decisions postdate the grant of permission. There was no dispute between the parties that the last two decisions formed part of the respondent’s decision making process and were irrelevant in deciding whether relief should be granted to the applicant.

Eshun UTJ
[2015] UKUT 166 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547330

Judicial review of a decision to remove the applicant from the UK pursuant to Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Coker UTJ
[2015] UKUT 268 (IAC)
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 10
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547337

UTIAC (i) The common law principles of procedural fairness apply to the decision making processes of Entry Clearance Officers (‘ECOs’).
(ii) ECO interviews serve the basic twofold purpose of enabling applications to be probed and investigated and, simultaneously, giving the applicant a fair opportunity to respond to potentially adverse matters. The ensuing decison must accord with the principles of procedural fairness.
(iii) A breach of the ‘Case Worker Guidance’ may render the decision of an ECO unlawful. As a general rule, a challenge advanced on this basis will succeed only where Wednesbury irrationality or a material procedural irregularity is established.

McCloskey J, P UT
[2015] UKUT 224 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547323

UTIAC The duties of a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings include responsibility towards a victim of historic trafficking into the country from which they later travel (untrafficked) to the signatory state.

Allen, Coker UTJJ
[2015] UKUT 170 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547324

UTIAC The material put before the tribunal did not disclose a sufficient evidential basis for giving country or other guidance upon what, reliably, can be expected in terms of the reception in Iran for those returning otherwise than with a ‘regular’ passport in relation to whom interest may be excited from the authorities into internet activity as might be revealed by an examination of blogging activity or a Facebook account. However, this determination is reported so that the evidence considered by the Upper Tribunal is available in the public domain.

Warr, Perkins UTJJ
[2015] UKUT 257 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547333

UTIAC (1) The statutory duty to consider the matters set out in s 117B of the 2002 Act is satisfied if the Tribunal’s decision shows that it has had regard to such parts of it as are relevant.
(2) An appellant can obtain no positive right to a grant of leave to remain from either s117B (2) or (3), whatever the degree of his fluency in English, or the strength of his financial resources.
(3) Parliament has now drawn a sharp distinction between any period of time during which a person has been in the UK ‘unlawfully’, and any period of time during which that person’s immigration status in the UK was merely ‘precarious’.
(4) Those who at any given date held a precarious immigration status must have held at that date an otherwise lawful grant of leave to enter or to remain. A person’s immigration status is ‘precarious’ if their continued presence in the UK will be dependent upon their obtaining a further grant of leave.
(5) In some circumstances it may also be that even a person with indefinite leave to remain, or a person who has obtained citizenship, enjoys a status that is ‘precarious’ either because that status is revocable by the Secretary of State as a result of their deception, or because of their criminal conduct. In such circumstances the person will be well aware that he has imperilled his status and cannot viably claim thereafter that his status is other than precarious.
(6) When the question posed by s117B(6) is the same question posed in relation to children by paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) it must be posed and answered in the proper context of whether it was reasonable to expect the child to follow its parents to their country of origin; EV (Philippines). It is not however a question that needs to be posed and answered in relation to each child more than once.

Ockleton VP, Holmes DUTJ
[2015] UKUT 260 (IAC)
Bailii
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 117B
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547335

Judicial Review of refusal of entry clearance.

O’Connor UTJ
[2015] UKUT 138 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547332

(i) Appendix FM does not include consideration of the question whether it would be disproportionate to expect an individual to return to his home country to make an entry clearance application to re-join family members in the U.K. There may be cases in which there are no insurmountable obstacles to family life being enjoyed outside the U.K. but where temporary separation to enable an individual to make an application for entry clearance may be disproportionate. In all cases, it will be for the individual to place before the Secretary of State evidence that such temporary separation will interfere disproportionately with protected rights. It will not be enough to rely solely upon the case-law concerning Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40.
(ii) Lord Brown was not laying down a legal test when he suggested in Chikwamba that requiring a claimant to make an application for entry clearance would only ‘comparatively rarely’ be proportionate in a case involving children (per Burnett J, as he then was, in R (Kotecha and Das v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2070 (Admin)).
(iii) In an application for leave on the basis of an Article 8 claim, the Secretary of State is not obliged to consider whether an application for entry clearance (if one were to be made) will be successful. Accordingly, her silence on this issue does not mean that it is accepted that the requirements for entry clearance to be granted are satisfied.
(iv) In cases where the Immigration Rules (the ‘IRs’) do not fully address an Article 8 claim so that it is necessary (pursuant to R (Nagre)) to consider the claim outside the IRs, a failure by the decision maker to consider Article 8 outside the IRs will only render the decision unlawful if the claimant in fact shows that there has been (or, in a permission application, arguably has been) a substantive breach of his or her rights under Article 8.

Gill UTJ
[2015] UKUT 189 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547321

Application for leave to remain on human rights grounds.

Dawson UTJ
[2015] UKUT 137 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547329

‘ The applicant claims that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to grant him leave as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant under para 245ZX of the Immigration Rules (Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395 as amended) following a decision of the First-tier Tribunal notified on 16 July 2013 allowing the applicant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision of 22 February 2013 to refuse him leave as a Tier 4 Student. ‘

Grubb UTJ
[2015] UKUT 213 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547334

Challenge to the lawfulness of (i) the Respondent’s decision to grant Limited Leave to Remain as opposed to Discretionary Leave and (ii) her decisions to impose, and refuse to remove, the condition prohibiting the Applicants recourse to public funds.

O’Connor UTJ
[2015] UKUT 136 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547328

Application for permission to appeal against a decision concerning the return of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection (‘BIPs’) to Italy under the Dublin II Convention.

[2014] EWCA Civ 1398
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547020

Challenge to arrangements for application for settlement and indefinite leave to remain.

Anthony Thornton QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 879 (Admin)
Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546855

Coe QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 500 (Admin)
Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546762

Claim of well-founded fear of persecution on political and religious grounds were he to be returned to Iran – credibility.

[2008] EWCA Civ 564
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.267936

Laws, Arden, Goldring LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 334, [2009] EWCA Civ 142
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – S and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-May-2006
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.311761

Aylum claim based on the treatment of the applicant and his wife by the Turkish police between 1996 and 2002 and the risks to him said to result from that treatment if they were to be returned to Turkey. The applicants’s father who was a ‘fervent supporter’ of a proscribed Kurdish organisation called the PSK, had disappeare and been found murdered.

[2008] EWCA Civ 511
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.267914

The court asked as to the effect of an oral announcement of a ‘decision’ by an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, and if an oral announcement is made that an appeal ‘is allowed’ or is ‘to be allowed’, what is the effect of a subsequent written determination to the effect that an error of law has been made but that a further reconsideration is required to dispose of the appeal?
Held: Though the AIT might give an oral announcement at the conclusion of a hearing, only the written determination constituted the decision. If an oral pronouncement was inconsistent with a subsequent written determination, there should be another hearing.

Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
[2008] EWCA Civ 495, Times 27-May-2008
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.267692

Asylum on the grounds of fear of female genital mutilation.

Richards LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 568
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.267935

[2006] EWHC 1111 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – S and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Feb-2009
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.241779

Jack J
[2003] EWHC 389 (Admin), [2003] INLR 507
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – BeokuBetts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
Cited – BeokuBetts v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2005
The appellant arrived aged 19 from Sierra Leone and was granted leave to enter as a student, which leave was extended. His famiy had been politically active and suffered abuse after a coup. When his leave expired he applied for asylum. Other family . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.185562

[2003] EWHC 883 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.185312

Lord Justice Peter Jackson,
Lord Justice Males,
And,
Sir Patrick Elias
[2021] EWCA Civ 1909
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.670501

[2020] EWCA Civ 1213
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.654048

Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE
[2018] EWHC 993 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.614967