Category: Immigration

SJ v Belgium: ECHR 19 Mar 2015

The applicant alleged that her expulsion to Nigeria would expose her to a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and would infringe her right to respect for her private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. She also complained of the lack of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.

Dean Spielmann, P
70055/10 – Grand Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 318, [2015] ECHR 547
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 13

Human Rights, Immigration, Family

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545066

Khalif, Regina (on The Application of) v Isleworth Crown Court: Admn 31 Mar 2015

The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2004 Act on his plea of guilty saying that he had been given erroneous legal advice as to section 2(4)(c).

Burnett LJ, Lewis J
[2015] EWHC 917 (Admin)
Bailii
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Thet v Director of Public Prosecutionsz Admn 19-Oct-2006
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction by the magistrates for entering the UK without a passport. He had relied on a false passport povided to him by an agent, and had returned it to the facilitator. He was therefore unable to . .
Cited – Asmeron v Regina CACD 11-Apr-2013
The court gave its reasons for allowing the defendant’s appeal against his conviction for entering into the UK without a passport. He had given his passport to an agent purporting to arrange his entry and under whose control he was. He claimed . .
Cited – Mohammed, Regina v; Regina v Osman CACD 16-Oct-2007
When a court considered a case involving a question of whether an asylum applicant who had arrived in the UK without documents or with false documents, it had to balance properly the need for control over entry with the stark realities which faced a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545009

Islam, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 27 Mar 2015

Appeal from the decision refusing to grant permission to seek judicial review of the decision of the Respondent refusing the appellant, leave to remain in the UK. The sole basis on which the appellant had argued that he should be entitled to remain was that removal would be a disproportionate interference with his rights to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Aikens, Black, Underhill LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 312
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544906

CG (Jamaica) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 10 Feb 2015

Secretary of State’s appeal, with permission against the decision of the Upper Tribunal promulgated upholding the determination of the First-Tier Tribunal which allowed the appeal of the respondent, CG, against the decision of the Secretary of State by notice to deport him on the ground that his deportation would be conducive to the public good.

Laws, Tomlinson, Christiopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 194
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544899

KI (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 19 Feb 2015

An immigration case in which a very long delay by the Secretary of State in reaching a decision on an application for leave to remain gave rise to an issue as to which version of the Immigration Rules applied to the determination of the question whether leave to remain should be granted.

Richards LJ, Kitchin J, Sales LJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 255
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544901

PF(Nigeria) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 25 Mar 2015

PF, a citizen of Nigeria, appealed against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing PF’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him.

Sullivan, Treacy LJJ, Sir Stanley Burnton
[2015] EWCA Civ 251
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544738

Ame v The Netherlands (Dec): ECHR 13 Jan 2015

ECHR Article 3
Expulsion
inadmissible
Facts – The applicant, who claims to be a Somali national, entered Italy in April 2009 in a group of about 200 people. The next day the local police took his fingerprints and registered him as having illegally entered the territory of the European Union. He was subsequently transferred to a reception centre for asylum-seekers, where he applied for international protection and was granted an Italian residence permit for subsidiary protection valid for three years. In May 2009 he left the reception centre for an unknown destination before applying for asylum in the Netherlands in October 2009. In April 2010 the Netherlands authorities requested the Italian authorities to take back the applicant under the terms of the the Dublin II Regulation.* As the Italian authorities failed to react to that request within two weeks, they were considered as having acceded implicitly to that request.
In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained that his transfer to Italy would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in that he risked to be exposed there to bad living conditions where no reception, care and legal aid were available for asylum-seekers.
Law – Article 3: Unlike the applicants in the case of Tarakhel, who were a family with six minor children, the applicant was an able young man with no dependents. As regards transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation, the Netherlands authorities had decided in consultation with the Italian authorities how and when transfers of asylum seekers to the Italian authorities would take place and in principle three working days’ notice was given. Moreover, the situation in Italy for asylum-seekers could in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the M.S.S. judgment. The structure and overall situation of the reception arrangements in Italy could not in themselves act as a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country. Therefore, bearing in mind how he had been treated by the Italian authorities after his arrival in Italy, the applicant had not established that his future prospects, if returned to Italy, whether taken from a material, physical or psychological perspective, disclosed a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3. There was no indication that he would not be able to benefit from the available resources in Italy for asylum-seekers or that, in case of difficulties, the Italian authorities would not respond in an appropriate manner.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

51428/10 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 271
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544174

Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 4 Mar 2015

B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not rational.
Held: The appeal failed. Homosexual, bisexual and transsexual people in Jamaica were at risk of persecution for their sexual orientation, and the Home Secretary had acted unlawfully in designating Jamaica, as a state where there was ‘in general no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside’ there.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKSC 8, [2015] Imm AR 837, [2015] 3 All ER 317, [2015] WLR(D) 101, [2015] INLR 493, [2015] 1 WLR 1060, UKSC 2013/0162
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .
At First Instance – Brown, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 28-May-2012
The claimant, a citizen of Jamaica, came to the UK in 2010 on a visitor’s visa with leave to remain for one month. He then applied for asylum on the ground that he is a Jamaican homosexual and feared persecution if returned to Jamaica. He was . .
Appeal from – JB (Jamaica), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2013
The claimant was to be removed and returned to Jamaica, but claimed that as a homosexual he would be persecuted. He now challenged the inclusion of Jamaica within the last of safe countries.
Held: (Moore-Bick LJ dissenting) The appeal . .
Cited – JB (Jamaica), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2013
The claimant was to be removed and returned to Jamaica, but claimed that as a homosexual he would be persecuted. He now challenged the inclusion of Jamaica within the last of safe countries.
Held: (Moore-Bick LJ dissenting) The appeal . .
Cited – Regina (Husan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought asylum from Bangladesh. His application was refused, and the respondent issued a certificate to say that his claim was hopeless. He sought judicial review.
Held: There was so much evidence that Bangladesh suffered . .
Cited – Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and others HL 30-Jan-2008
The tenant sought to enfranchise the property under the 1967 Act. The freeholders replied that it was not a ‘house’ within the Act at the time of the notice. It had been built in the eighteenth century as a house, but the lower floors had been . .
Cited – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same CA 10-Mar-2009
Each applicant had had his appeal for asylum rejected. They had said that they were practising homosexuals, and that they would face persecution if returned home.
Held: The appeals failed. In each case the social norms of the country of origin . .
Cited – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same SC 7-Jul-2010
The claimants sought to prevent their removal and return to their countries of origin saying that as practising homosexuals they would face discrimination and persecution. They appealed against a judgment saying that they could avoid persecution by . .
Cited – MD (Gambia), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 17-Feb-2011
The appellant, a Gambian national sought review of two decisions of the Secretary of State as to first her decision to designate as safe, Gambia, in respect of men only, in the list of countries in section 94(4) of the 2002 Act, and second as to her . .
Cited – Brown, Regina v (Northern Ireland) SC 26-Jun-2013
The complainaint, a 13 year old girl had first said that the defendant had had intercourse with her againt her consent. After his arrest, she accepted that this was untrue. On being recharged with unlawful intercourse, he admitted guilt believing he . .

Cited by:
Cited – Privacy 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543800

Woodward, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 27 Feb 2015

The Claimant, sought judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of her marriage to a British citizen, Mr Alan Woodward.

Christopher Butcher QC DHCJ
[2015] EWHC 470 (Admin)
Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543651

Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y and Z: ECJ 5 Sep 2012

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or for subsidiary protection status – Article (2)(c) – Classification as a ‘refugee’ – Article 9(1) – Definition of ‘acts of persecution’ – Article 10(1)(b) – Religion as ground for persecution – Connection between the reasons for persecution and the acts of persecution – Pakistani nationals who are members of the Ahmadiyya religious community – Acts by the Pakistani authorities designed to prohibit the manifestation of a person’s religion in public – Acts sufficiently serious for the person concerned to have a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of his religion – Individual assessment of the facts and circumstances – Article 4

Skouris, P
C-71/11, [2012] EUECJ C-71/11
Bailii
Directive 2004/83/EC
European

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.463845

Council Of The European Union v European Commission: ECJ 5 Sep 2012

ECJ Schengen Borders Code – Decision 2010/252/EU – Surveillance of the sea external borders – Introduction of additional rules governing border surveillance – Commission’s implementing powers – Scope – Application for annulment

Skouris, P
C-355/10, [2012] EUECJ C-355/10
Bailii
European

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.463846

XY (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Apr 2008

Renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of Immigration Judge. On a reconsideration he dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of his asylum and human rights claims. The appellant is a citizen of Iran and is homosexual. He claimed that he had been in a long-term relationship with M, that this had come to the attention of the authorities, that M had been arrested, that a summons had been issued against himself and that he had fled from Iran in those circumstances.

[2008] EWCA Civ 533
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.267913

Regina (James Yankey) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 7 Aug 2001

The applicant appealed refusal of leave to enter the UK. He had used a false passport. Where fraud has been exercised to obtain leave to enter, that is a sufficient ground for exclusion of the fraudster from the United Kingdom, on the grounds that such exclusion is conducive to the public good.

[2001] EWHC Admin 627
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Patel HL 1988
The respondent, a stateless person with an identity certificate rather than a passport, had obtained entry clearance to the UK by falsely representing that he was a single man.
Held: Where fraud has been exercised to obtain leave to enter that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.166216

Younas (Section 117B, (B); Chikwamba; Zambrano) Pakistan: UTIAC 24 Mar 2020

(1) An appellant in an Article 8 human rights appeal who argues that there is no public interest in removal because after leaving the UK he or she will be granted entry clearance must, in all cases, address the relevant considerations in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) including section 117B(1), which stipulates that ‘the maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest’. Reliance on Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40 does not obviate the need to do this.
(2) Section 117B(6)(b) of the 2002 Act requires a court or tribunal to assume that the child in question will leave the UK: Secretary of State for the Home Department v AB (Jamaica) and Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 661 and JG (s 117B(6): ‘reasonable to leave’ UK) Turkey [2019] UKUT 72 (IAC). However, once that assumption has been made, the court or tribunal must move from the hypothetical to the real: paragraph 19 of KO (Nigeria) and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53. The length of time a child is likely to be outside the UK is part of the real world factual circumstances in which a child will find herself and is relevant to deciding, for the purpose of section 117B(6)(b), whether it would be unreasonable to expect the child to leave the UK.
(3) The assessment of whether a child, as a result of being compelled to leave the territory of the European Union, will be a deprived of his or her genuine enjoyment of the rights conferred by Article 20 TFEU in accordance with Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (Case C-34/09) falls to be assessed by considering the actual facts (including how long a child is likely to be outside the territory of the Union), rather than theoretical possibilities.

[2020] UKUT 129 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.650792

Simaei and Another, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Dublin Returns – Hungary (IJR): UTIAC 24 Feb 2015

UTIAC In light of the considerable body of relevant background country information considered by the Respondent, it was open to her to find that there was neither systemic deficiency nor were there substantial operational problems in the conditions in Hungary for the reception, processing and treatment of asylum seekers.

McCloskey P J
[2015] UKUT 83 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543187

Bossadi (Paragraph 276Ade; Suitability; Ties): UTIAC 28 Jan 2015

UTIAC (1) Being able to meet the requirements of paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules requires being able to meet the suitability requirements set out in paragraph 276ADE(1). It is because this subparagraph contains suitability requirements that it is not possible for foreign criminals relying on private life grounds to circumvent the provisions of the Rules dealing with deportation of foreign criminals.
(2) The requirement set out in paragraph 276ADE (vi) (in force from 9 July 2012 to 27 July 2014) to show that a person ‘is aged 18 years or above, has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) but has no ties (including social, cultural or family) with the country to which he would have to go if required to leave the UK’, requires a rounded assessment as to whether a person’s familial ties could result in support to him in the event of his return, an assessment taking into account both subjective and objective considerations and also consideration of what lies within the choice of a claimant to achieve.

Storey, Dawson UTJJ
[2015] UKUT 42 (IAC)
Bailii
Immigration Rules 276ADE
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543178

Secretary of State for The Home Department v MA (Somalia): CA 5 Feb 2015

The court was asked as to the proposed deportation of the respondent, MA, pursuant to the automatic deportation provisions of the 2007 Act by reason of his conviction in 2007 for offences of rape and attempted rape, for which he was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. His appeal against deportation was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal on Article 8 ECHR grounds. The Secretary of State’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the FTT’s determination was dismissed. The Secretary of State now appealed against the UT’s determination.

Rchatds, Ryder LJJ, Sir Colin Rimer
[2015] EWCA Civ 48
Bailii
UK Borders Act 2007
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542265

Draga v The United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Jan 2015

Communicated Case – The applicant, a Kosovan Gorani, had been granted refugee status and indefinite leave to remain, but after conviction for criminal damage and drugs offences and possession of a knife in a public place he was sentenced, and after completion of his sentence he was ordered to be departed. The offences were included in the 2004 Order. His deportation was suspended after the 2004 Order was declared unlawful, containing irrebutable presumptions.
Held: The Court now issued questions for the parties.

33341/13, [2015] ECHR 73
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004, European Convention on Huma Rights 2 3

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542220

GS (India) and Others v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Jan 2015

Five appellants challenged a determination of the Upper Tribunal dismissing their several appeals against the decision of the Secretary of State removing them from the United Kingdom. All six suffer from serious medical conditions which are being effectively treated in this country. Five of them, some more certainly than others, would be at risk of a very early death if returned to their home States. In the sixth case the evidence suggests a somewhat longer period. They challenge the removal decisions as being repugnant to their rights guaranteed by Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Laws, Sullivan, Sedley LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 40
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542017

Kanagaratnam And Others v Belgium: ECHR 13 Dec 2011

The applicants alleged in particular that their detention at the detention center for illegal immigrants for deportation to the Congo, a country through which they had passed, was in violation of Article 3 and Article 5-1(f) the Convention

Jociene P
15297/09 – HEJUD, [2011] ECHR 2420, (2012) 55 EHRR 26
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541949

TK (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 4 Feb 2009

The applicant, failed asylum seeker, appealed against an order for his removal, saying that it would interfere with his right to family wife by removing him from his wife and daughter.
Held: The applicant had not given any independent evidence of the existence of the wide and daughter he said existed, nor any explanation for the absence of such evidence, and the court had not erred in law in taking that as a basis for rejecting his claim.

Waller LJ, Thomas LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 40, Times 09-Apr-2009
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.280445

Alia, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 31 Jul 2003

Keith J
[2003] EWHC 1881 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.185041

Soylemez, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 15 Apr 2003

Davis J
[2003] EWHC 1056 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.185319

Mishto, Regina (on the Application Of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 19 May 2003

Harrison J
[2003] EWHC 1449 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Mishto v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 12-Dec-2003
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Mishto v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 12-Dec-2003
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.185346

Pirzada (Deprivation of Citizenship: General Principles : Afghanistan): UTIAC 20 Apr 2017

(i) The Secretary of State has two separate powers of deprivation, exercisable on different grounds, as set out in sub-ss (2) and (3) of s 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981.
(ii) The power under s 40(2) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
(iii) The power under sub-s (3) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that registration or naturalisation was obtained by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. The deception referred to must have motivated the grant of (in the present case) citizenship, and therefore necessarily preceded that grant
(iv) The separation of sub-ss (2) and (3) makes it clear that obtaining naturalisation by one of the means of deception set out in sub-s (3) cannot of itself amount to a reason enabling the Secretary of State to be satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good for the purposes of sub-s (2); but, in an appropriate case, there would appear to be no reason why the Secretary of State should not be satisfied that the conditions under both subsections exist.
(v) The restrictions on the rights of appeal imposed by s 84 of the 2002 Act do not apply to appeals against a s 40 decision: therefore, any proper ground of appeal is available to an applicant. The grounds of appeal are, however, limited by the formulation of s 40 and must be directed to whether the Secretary of State’s decision was in fact empowered by that section. There is no suggestion that a Tribunal has the power to consider whether it is satisfied of any of the matters set out in sub-ss (2) or (3); nor is there any suggestion that the Tribunal can itself exercise the Secretary of State’s discretion.

[2017] UKUT 196 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.588804

SM (Lone Women – Ostracism) (CG): UTIAC 2 Feb 2016

UTIAC (1) Save as herein set out, the existing country guidance in SN and HM (Divorced women – risk on return) Pakistan CG [2004] UKIAT 00283 and in KA and Others (domestic violence – risk on return) Pakistan CG [2010] UKUT 216 (IAC) remains valid.
(2) Where a risk of persecution or serious harm exists in her home area for a single woman or a female head of household, there may be an internal relocation option to one of Pakistan’s larger cities, depending on the family, social and educational situation of the woman in question.
(3) It will not be normally be unduly harsh to expect a single woman or female head of household to relocate internally within Pakistan if she can access support from family members or a male guardian in the place of relocation.
(4) It will not normally be unduly harsh for educated, better off, or older women to seek internal relocation to a city. It helps if a woman has qualifications enabling her to get well-paid employment and pay for accommodation and childcare if required.
(5) Where a single woman, with or without children, is ostracised by family members and other sources of possible social support because she is in an irregular situation, internal relocation will be more difficult and whether it is unduly harsh will be a question of fact in each case.
(6) A single woman or female head of household who has no male protector or social network may be able to use the state domestic violence shelters for a short time, but the focus of such shelters is on reconciling people with their family networks, and places are in short supply and time limited. Privately run shelters may be more flexible, providing longer term support while the woman regularises her social situation, but again, places are limited.
(7) Domestic violence shelters are available for women at risk but where they are used by women with children, such shelters do not always allow older children to enter and stay with their mothers. The risk of temporary separation, and the proportionality of such separation, is likely to differ depending on the age and sex of a woman’s children: male children may be removed from their mothers at the age of 5 and placed in an orphanage or a madrasa until the family situation has been regularised (see KA and Others (domestic violence risk on return) Pakistan CG [2010] UKUT 216 (IAC)). Such temporary separation will not always be disproportionate or unduly harsh: that is a question of fact in each case.
(8) Women in Pakistan are legally permitted to divorce their husbands and may institute divorce proceedings from the country of refuge, via a third party and with the help of lawyers in Pakistan, reducing the risk of family reprisals. A woman who does so and returns with a new partner or husband will have access to male protection and is unlikely, outside her home area, to be at risk of ostracism, still less of persecution or serious harm.

[2016] UKUT 67 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.560541

RSM and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Unaccompanied Minors – Art 17 Dublin Regulation – Remedies): UTIAC 12 Apr 2017

(I) The question of whether the Secretary of State has made a decision on the exercise of the discretionary power in Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation is one of fact which will be determined on the basis of evidence, direct or inferential.
(II) Article 17 is an integral part of the Dublin regime. The suggestion that the Article 17 discretion falls to be exercised only where the family reunification criteria in Article 8 are not satisfied is misconceived.
(III) Article 17 has a role in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures and systems of the host Member State.
(IV) Relevant government policy statements constitute, as a minimum, material considerations to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the discretionary power in Article 17. The Lumba principle is also engaged.
(V) The judicial assessment of the efficacy of the Dublin systems and procedures in the host Member State will invariably be fact sensitive and will take into account the overarching aims and objectives of the Dublin Regulation, including the maintenance of inter-Member State solidarity and mutual trust and respect, together with expedition.
(VI) Expedition has special force in the case of unaccompanied children.
(VII) The discretion to judicially determine essentially academic issues in judicial review proceedings will normally be informed by the overriding objective.

[2017] UKUT 124 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.588805

SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section: CA 4 Nov 2015

The Entry Clearance Officer appealed from a decision that a child assigned to be under guardianship under the Islamic ‘kefalah’ system in her own country was to be treated on the basis that she did fall within the definition of ‘extended family member’ under regulation 8. The case was therefore returned to the Secretary of State for her to exercise the discretion conferred upon her by regulation 12(2)(c).
Held: The ECO’s appeal succeeded. The real question was not whether S fell within the definition of ‘family member’ in regulation 7 or the definition of ‘extended family member’ in regulation 8. Rather, it was whether she was a ‘direct descendant’ within the definition of ‘family member’ in article 2.2(c) of the Citizens Directive; or alternatively whether she fell within ‘any other family members, . . , who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence . . ‘ in article 3.2(a). The Directive permitted Member States to restrict the forms of adoption which they would recognise for the purpose of article 2.2(c). Not having been adopted in a manner recognised by UK law, S could not fall within that article; and that being so, those restrictions could not be undermined by recognising that she might fall within article 3.2(a).

Laws, Kitchin, Christopher LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1109, [2016] Imm AR 239, [2015] CN 1756
Bailii
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1003)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – IM240192005 (Unreported) AIT 12-Feb-2007
Reconsideration of the appeal of the appellant, a citizen of India, against the decision of the respondent on 12 March 2004 refusing her entry clearance to the United Kingdom as an adoptive child.
Held: The case was ordered to be reviewed. . .
Cited – MN (India) v Entry Clearance Officer (New Delhi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Feb-2008
The Court set out four avenues for entry to the UK provided by the Rules in respect of a child adopted or intended to be adopted from abroad. . .

Cited by:
Appal from (CA) – SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court was asked two questions, first as to its jurisdiction according to the meaning of an ‘EEA Decision’ within the 2006 Regulations, and second as to the position under the Directive of a child who is a third country national but has been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Adoption, European

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.554279

MSM (Journalists; Political Opinion; Risk): UTIAC 3 Jul 2015

[1] The enforced return of the Appellant, a journalist, from the United Kingdom to his country of origin, Somalia, would expose him to a real risk of persecution on the ground of actual or imputed political opinion and/or a breach of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.
[2] It is probable that, in the event of returning to Somalia, the Appellant will seek and find employment in the media sector.
[3] The Appellant is not to be denied refugee status on the ground that it would be open to him to seek to engage in employment other than in the media sector.
[4] Documents such as Home Office Country Information Guidance and Country of Information publications and kindred reports should not be forensically construed by the kind of exercise more appropriate to a contract, deed or other legal instrument. Reports of this kind are written by laymen, in laymen’s language, to be read and understood by laymen. Thus courts and tribunals should beware an overly formal or legalistic approach in construing them. Furthermore, reports of this type should be evaluated and construed in their full context,
[5] In cases where the Secretary of State seeks to withdraw a concession, or admission, the Tribunal should adopt a broad approach, taking into account in particular its inquisitorial jurisdiction, the public law overlay, the imperative of considering all relevant evidence and fairness to the litigant.

McCloskey P J, Dawson UTJ
[2015] UKUT 413 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.551569

Link Spolka ZOO and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 2 Dec 2021

Operation of Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 [‘the Act’], which provides for carriers who are found with clandestine entrants on board their vehicles to be liable to civil penalties. The facts of each case differ slightly but are in many respects routine and typical. In each case the appellants appealed to the County Court against the Respondent SSHD’s imposition of a penalty. The present appeals are from the decisions of the respective County Court judges.

Lady Justice King DBE,
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith,
And,
Lord Justice Warby
[2021] EWCA Civ 1830
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.670337

AMG, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 Jan 2015

AMG now applies for judicial review of the initial decision to detain him under powers under the 197 Act, and the decision to maintain such detention at various points thereafter.

William Davis J
[2015] EWHC 5 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540496

Re LB, CB (A Child) and JB (A Child): CA 21 Jul 2014

The FTT had dismissed the first appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum, humanitarian protection and leave to remain in the United Kingdom on human rights grounds. Although the Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT decision, it too dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal.

Laws, Floyd, Vos LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1693
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540483

Azizi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 14 Nov 2014

Mr and Mrs Azizi and their five children, citizens of Afghanistan, challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department granting the family discretionary leave to remain for a period of three years when it is said that the only proper course open to the Secretary of State was to grant the family indefinite leave to remain.

Symons QC DHCJ
[2014] EWHC 4021 (Admin)
Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539832

Antonio, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 21 Nov 2014

Application for judicial review in which the Claimant claims a declaration that the Defendant was not entitled to make a second deportation order following the revocation of an earlier order, an order quashing that second deportation order and damages and/or compensation for false imprisonment alternatively for a violation of his article 5 rights in respect of his detention in whole or in part from September 2010 to November 2013.

Bidder QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 3894 (Admin)
Bailii
Immigration Act 1971 591)

Immigration

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539128

Muwonge, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Consent Orders: Costs: Guidance) (IJR): UTIAC 7 Nov 2014

UTIAC (i) There appears to be a practice, relatively entrenched, whereby an AOS which contains a concession, with or without an accompanying draft consent order, incorporates a claim for costs, liquidated or otherwise. In most cases, the claim for costs has no justification.
(ii) There may be cases, likely to be small in number, where an AOS which embodies a concession on behalf of the Secretary of State, with or without an accompanying draft consent order, justifiably and reasonably incorporates a claim for costs. In such cases, good practice dictates that the AOS should state, briefly, the justification for such claim.
(iii) Where a draft consent order is tabled, both parties should proactively take all necessary and appropriate steps designed to achieve consensual resolution within a period of (at most) three weeks.
(iv) Where consensual resolution is not achieved within the timescale recommended above, this should operate as a bilateral incentive to redouble efforts to do so.
(v) In every case possessing the factor of an unexecuted draft consent order, it is essential to provide the Upper Tribunal with each party’s explanation, brief and focussed, for non-execution. This explanation should be provided by both parties, in writing:
(a) Within four weeks of the date of the AOS or, if different, the date of receipt of the draft consent order.
(b) Where a case is listed, not later than five clear working days in advance of the listing date.
(c) In cases where there is any material alteration or evolution in the terms of the explanation, not later than two clear days in advance of the listing date.
(vi) It is recognised that, exceptionally, there may be cases in which for good and sustainable reasons a consent order cannot be reasonably executed until a very late stage indeed, postdating the periods and landmarks noted above. However, the experience of the Upper Tribunal to date is that consent orders are very frequently not executed and presented to the Tribunal for approval until the last moment, frequently late on the day before the scheduled hearing and that no good reason is proffered for the parties’ failure to do so at an earlier stage. This practice is unacceptable.
(vii) The practice whereby executed consent orders materialise during the period of 48 hours prior to the listing date is unsatisfactory and unacceptable in the great majority of cases. The Upper Tribunal recognises that there may be a small number of cases where, exceptionally, this is unavoidable.
(viii) In matters of this kind, parties and their representatives are strongly encouraged to communicate electronically with the Tribunal and, further, to seek confirmation that important communications and/or attachments have been received.
(ix) In determining issues of costs, Upper Tribunal Judges will take into account the extent to which the recommendations and exhortations tabulated above have been observed and will scrutinise closely every explanation and justification proffered for non-compliance.

McCloskey J P
[2014] UKUT 514 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Costs

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539114

Kerr, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (IJR): UTIAC 25 Sep 2014

Substantive consideration of an application to judicially review the decision of the Secretary of State refusing the applicant’s claim for leave to remain in the United Kingdom in order to pursue an established private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

Jordan UTJ
[2014] UKUT 493 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539105

Akande, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (IJR): UTIAC 1 Oct 2014

Judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to set removal directions for the applicant’s removal to Nigeria following the refusal of the applicant’s application for leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant under para 245ZX of the Immigration Rules (HC 395 as amended) and for a Biometric Residence Permit.

Grubb UTJ
[2014] UKUT 468 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Education

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539106

Ali, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (S3C Extended Leave: Invalidation) (IJR): UTIAC 8 Oct 2014

UTIAC Leave that has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 is invalidated by section 10(8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 where a decision is made under section 10 to remove the person having such leave.

Lane UTJ
[2014] UKUT 494 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539107

Miah (Interviewer’s Comments: Disclosure: Fairness): UTIAC 10 Nov 2014

UTAA Conduct of pre-decision interviews
(i) A decision that a marriage is a marriage of convenience for the purposes of regulation 2(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 is a matter of some moment. Fairness requires that the affected person must be alerted to the essential elements of the case against him.
(ii) In addition, those involved must be alert to the question of whether, in an unusual or exceptional case, anything further is required in the interests of fairness. There may be difficult, borderline cases in which fairness will require identification of the third party. These do not admit of general guidance or resolution and will have to be addressed on a case by case basis, guided by the overarching requirement of fairness and balancing all interests in play.
The making of the decision on the application
(iii) The Secretary of State’s decision making process includes a process whereby comments, or opinions, of an interviewing officer are conveyed to the decision maker. In the generality of cases, this practice will not contaminate the fairness of the decision making process. The duty of the decision maker is to approach and consider all of the materials with an open mind and with circumspection. The due discharge of this duty, coupled with the statutory right of appeal, will provide the subject with adequate protection.
Disclosure
(iv) However, the document enshrining the interviewer’s comments – Form ICV.4605 – must be disclosed as a matter of course. An appellant’s right to a fair hearing dictates this course. If, exceptionally, some legitimate concern about disclosure, for example, the protection of a third party, should arise, this should be proactively brought to the attention of the Tribunal, for a ruling and directions. In this way the principle of independent judicial adjudication will provide adequate safeguards for the appellant. This will also enable mechanisms such as redaction, which in practice one would expect to arise with extreme rarity, to be considered.

McCloskey J P
[2014] UKUT 515 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539113

Fakih, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (IJR): UTIAC 7 Nov 2014

The Respondent had granted the Applicant leave to remain for a period of 30 months. The leave was granted outside of the Immigration Rules. The Respondent imposed a condition on this leave prohibiting the Applicant from having recourse to public funds. The Respondent agreed to reconsider her decision to impose such a condition, upon receipt of a pre-action protocol letter threatening judicial review proceedings. However, the Respondent maintained her earlier decision. It is the lawfulness of the imposition of the condition on the Applicant’s leave that is at the centre of these judicial review proceedings.

O’Connor UTJ
[2014] UKUT 513 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539111