Category: Immigration

Ben Alaya v Bundesrepublik Deutschland: ECJ 12 Jun 2014

ECJ (Advocate General’s Opinion) Area of ??freedom, security and justice – Directive 2004/114 / EC – Conditions for admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of study – Refusal of admission of a person fulfilling the conditions laid down in the 2004 Directive / 114 / EC – Regulation of a Member State providing for a discretion of the administration

C-491/13, [2014] EUECJ C-491/13 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Ben Alaya v Bundesrepublik Deutschland ECJ 10-Sep-2014
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2004/114/EC – Articles 6, 7 and 12 – Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Education

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526674

Ali (Permission Decisions: Errors; Slip Rule) Pakistan: UTIAC 9 Jul 2020

(1) Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 and rule 42 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 may each be employed in order to correct an error in a decision granting or refusing permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In cases of obvious error, the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber can, in general, be expected in future to proceed as follows.
(2) Where the First-tier Tribunal permission judge has granted permission when the reasons make it evident they meant to refuse, an Upper Tribunal Judge, acting as a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, will make the necessary correction under rule 31 of the FtTIAC Rules, as soon as the matter is identified, whether that is at case management stage, as a result of communication from a party, or otherwise. Although the matter can and should (as in the present case) be raised in a rule 24 response from the respondent, it is preferable for it to be addressed earlier, since a hearing may already have been arranged before that response is received.
(3) Where the First-tier Tribunal permission judge refuses permission, but clearly meant to grant it, any renewal of permission before the Upper Tribunal should point out the error and ask for it to be corrected under rule 31. In any event, a party should inform the Upper Tribunal of the mistake.
(4) In the Upper Tribunal, where a judge grants permission when they clearly meant to refuse, the error is unlikely to be identified at a case management stage, if and insofar as that stage is undertaken by the same judge, immediately after their mistaken grant. This highlights the point, emphasised in Isufaj (PTA decisions/reasons: EEA reg. 37 appeal) [2019] UKUT 283 (IAC), that it is the responsibility of the permission judge, whether in the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal, to make sure there is no contradiction between their decision and the reasons for it. Otherwise, the points made above in respect of the rule 24 response apply also in this situation.
(5) Where an Upper Tribunal Judge refuses permission to appeal, when they clearly meant to grant it, the decision is an ‘excluded decision’: section 13(8)(c) of the 2007 Act and cannot be appealed to the appropriate appellate court. A party should, therefore, apply for the Upper Tribunal to exercise its power of correction under rule 42.
(6) The process just described applies only to those cases in which there is a clear and obvious contradiction between the intention of the judge who decided the application for permission and the order made on that application. In any other case, parties should proceed on the basis that the decision is that recorded in the relevant document and the Tribunal is likely to regard it as productive of delay and a waste of its resources to engage in an inter partes process in order to determine whether the slip rule should be applied.

[2020] UKUT 249 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.653928

Hussein and Another (Status of Passports: Foreign Law) Tanzania: UTIAC 30 Jul 2020

1. A person who holds a genuine passport, apparently issued to him, and not falsified or altered, has to be regarded as a national of the State that issued the passport.
2. The burden of proving the contrary lies on the claimant in an asylum case.
3. Foreign law (including nationality law) is a matter of evidence, to be proved by expert evidence directed specifically to the point in issue.

[2020] UKUT 250 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.653929

Gu 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 only, therefore, be from within those two limits.’

Fosjett J
[2014] EWHC 1634 (Admin), [2015] 1 All ER 363
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526426

Karsaiye, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 20 May 2014

The applicant seeking judicial review, and the respondent had agreed a form of order, which they then asked the court to make. The court had refused to make such an order without a hearing. A hearing took place.
Held: The application was dismissed.

Simon Bryan QC
[2014] EWHC 1738 (Admin)
Bailii

Judicial Review, Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.526072

MG and NR v Staatssecretaris Van Veiligheid En Justitie: ECJ 10 Sep 2013

ECJ Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons – Immigration policy – Illegal immigration and illegal residence – Repatriation of illegal residents – Directive 2008/115/EC – Return of illegally staying third-country nationals – Removal process – Detention measure – Extension of detention – Article 15(2) and (6) – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Infringement – Consequences

C38313, [2013] EUECJ C38313
Bailii
Directive 2008/115/EC 15(2) 15(6)

European, Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.526059

YN v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 23 May 2014

Outer House Court of Session. The petitioner appealed against a deportation order made after his release from imprisonment for possession of cannabis with intent to supply. He had fled Angola when 18 and lived in Scotalnd, obtaining indefinite leave to remain for 14 years.

Lady Scott
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 90
Bailii
Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.526027

TN (Ap), Re Judicial Review: SCS 14 May 2014

Judicial Review of a decision by the Secretary of State for the Home Department made on 25 November 2013 to certify in terms of section 96(2) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 an application made by the petitioner for the revocation of a deportation order

[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 85
Bailii
Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.526026

Francis, 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.

Moore-Bick, Christopher Clarke LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley
[2014] EWCA Civ 718, [2015] 1 WLR 567, [2014] WLR(D) 240
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525869

Air Baltic Corporation v Valsts robezsardze: ECJ 21 May 2014

ECJ Opinion – Area of ??freedom, security and justice – Border control, asylum and immigration – Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 – Article 5, paragraph 1 – Crossing the border – Requirement of a valid visa contained in a document valid travel – Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 – Impact of the termination of the travel document the validity of the visa in it

Paolo Mengozzi AG
C-575/12, [2014] EUECJ C-575/12 – O, [2014] EUECJ C-575/12
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006, Regulation (EC) No 810/2009

European, Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525826

Hines v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 20 May 2014

The child applicant sought housing assistance.
Held: The child’s welfare had obviously to be taken into account, but it could not be the paramount consideration as this would be inconsistent with the statutory language.

Sullivan, Patten, Vos LJJ
[2014] HLR 32, [2014] WLR(D) 238, [2014] EWCA Civ 660, [2014] 1 WLR 4112
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Act 1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Children

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525628

Bero v Regierungsprasidium Kassel: ECJ 30 Apr 2014

ECJ Opinion – Area of ??freedom, security and justice – Directive 2008/115/EC – Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country illegally – Measurement of detention for the purpose of removal – Terms and Conditions of retention – Article 16, paragraph 1 – Retention in specialized detention – National legislation providing for retention in a prison in the state where he does not have a specialized detention – Compatibility

Yves Bot AG
C-473/13, [2014] EUECJ C-473/13
Bailii
ce – Directive 2008/115/EC

European, Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525424

Secretary of State for The Home Department v P3: CA 8 Nov 2021

Appeal by the Secretary of State from a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which allowed P3’s appeal pursuant to section 2(1)(a) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse his application for entry clearance (‘Decision 2’).

Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE
[2021] EWCA Civ 1642
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.669734

H (Ap), Re Judicial Review: SCS 2 Apr 2014

The petitioner seeks judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 10 July 2013 in terms of which she decided that the petitioner’s representations of June 2013, taken together with his previous representations, did not give rise to a fresh asylum claim.

Lord Doherty
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 63
Bailii

Scotland, Immigration

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523711

Refugee Action, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Apr 2014

Application for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision that the level of support provided in cash to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers for the financial year 2013/2014 should remain frozen at the rates which had applied since 2011.

Popplewell J
[2014] EWHC 1033 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523638

Grenville College London Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Apr 2014

Grenville College sought to challenge by way of judicial review the Defendant’s decisions: to reduce its Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies allocation to zero; to suspend its Highly Trusted Status licence; and to require it to apply for a new licence. Birmingham College of Law and Management sought to challenge by way of judicial review the Defendant’s decisions: to suspend its HTS licence; and to revoke its HTS licence.

Coe QC
[2014] EWHC 1065 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Education

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523637

Stanley College London UK Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 9 Apr 2014

Challenge to the decision of the Defendant to refuse the Claimant’s application for highly trusted sponsor status under Tier 4 of the points-based system of the Immigration Rules.

Hamblen J
[2014] EWHC 1038 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Education, Immigration

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523639

R (on The Application of Muzzana Munir Baloch) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (IJR): UTIAC 20 Feb 2014

Application for judicial review of the decisions of the respondent refusing to treat further representations made by the applicant as a fresh claim and maintaining her decision to remove her from the United Kingdom.

Allen UTJ
[2014] UKUT 103 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523490

Ved and Another (Appealable Decisions; Permission Applications; Basnet) (Tanzania): UTIAC 27 Mar 2014

UTIAC (1) A jurisdictional decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, contained in a determination made after the appeal has passed the duty judge ‘screening’ stage, is appealable to the Upper Tribunal: Practice Statement 3.4; Abiyat and others (Rights of appeal) [2011] UKUT 314 (IAC).
(2) Where the First-tier Tribunal has refused to entertain an application made to it for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal has discretion under rule 7 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to consider an application for permission made to that Tribunal, notwithstanding that the requirements of rule 21(2)(b) have not been met, in that the First-tier Tribunal has not refused (or not admitted) a permission application. It is, however, unlikely that the Upper Tribunal would apply rule 7 so as to entertain a permission application in the case of a party who has not made any prior application to the First-tier Tribunal. Likewise, the Upper Tribunal can be expected summarily to reject an application for permission to appeal a decision that has been made under rule 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 and in accordance with Practice Statement 3.1-3.3.
(3) The findings of the Upper Tribunal in Basnet (Validity of application – respondent) [2012] UKUT 113 (IAC) depended upon there being an appealable immigration decision, which in that case can only have been a refusal to vary leave to remain within section 82(2)(d) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Secretary of State’s rejection of an application for leave as invalid is not an immigration decision within section 82 of the 2002 Act and cannot as such be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.

Eshun, Peter Lane UTJJ
[2014] UKUT 150 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523493

Poyraz, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (IJR): UTIAC 28 Mar 2014

Challenge to a decision to deport the applicant and a request for a declaration that the respondent consider an application made in 2004 and that the respondent might no longer lawfully exercise her power to deport the applicant by reference to a conviction in September 2000.

[2014] UKUT 151 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523491

MM (Unfairness; E and R) Sudan: UTIAC 24 Feb 2014

UTIAC (1) Where there is a defect or impropriety of a procedural nature in the proceedings at first instance, this may amount to a material error of law requiring the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (the ‘FtT’) to be set aside.
(2) A successful appeal is not dependent on the demonstration of some failing on the part of the FtT. Thus an error of law may be found to have occurred in circumstances where some material evidence, through no fault of the FtT, was not considered, with resulting unfairness (E and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49).

Southern UTJ
[2014] UKUT 105 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523489

Edgehill and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 2 Apr 2014

Appeals by foreign nationals against decisions of the Upper Tribunal upholding decisions that their applications for indefinite leave to remain under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights be refused.

Laws, Jackson, Black LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 402
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523425

Sabir (Appendix FM – Ex1 Not Free Standing) (Pakistan): UTIAC 31 Jan 2014

UTIAC It is plain from the architecture of the Rules as regards partners that EX.1 is ‘parasitic’ on the relevant Rule within Appendix FM that otherwise grants leave to remain. If EX.1 was intended to be a free- standing element some mechanism of identification would have been used. The structure of the Rules as presently drafted requires it to be a component part of the leave granting Rule. This is now made plain by the respondent’s guidance dated October 2013.

Coker UTJ
[2014] UKUT 63 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522259

Shahzad (Art 8: Legitimate Aim) Pakistan: UTIAC 26 Feb 2014

(i) Failure on the part of the Secretary of State to identify in her decision any legitimate aim under Article 8(2) of the ECHR does not prevent a court or tribunal from seeking to do so on the basis of the materials before it.
(ii) ‘Maintenance of effective immigration control’ whilst not as such a legitimate aim under Article 8(2) of the ECHR can normally be assumed to be either an aspect of ‘prevention of disorder or crime’ or an aspect of ‘economic well-being of the country’ or both.
(iii) ‘[P]revention of disorder or crime’ is normally a legitimate aim both in expulsion cases where there has been criminal conduct on the part of the claimant and in expulsion cases where there have only been breaches of immigration law.
(iv) MF (Nigeria) [2013] EWCA Civ 1192 held that the new immigration rules regarding deportation of a foreign criminal are a complete code. This was because of the express requirement in them at paragraph 398 to have regard to exceptional circumstances and other factors.
(v) It follows from this that any other rule which has a similar provision will also constitute a complete code;
(vi) Where an area of the rules does not have such an express mechanism, the approach in R (Nagre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) ([29]-[31] in particular) and Gulshan (Article 8 – new Rules – correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 (IAC) should be followed: i.e. after applying the requirements of the rules, only if there may be arguably good grounds for granting leave to remain outside them is it necessary for Article 8 purposes to go on to consider whether there are compelling circumstances not sufficiently recognised under them.

Storey, Pitt UTJJ
[2014] UKUT 85 (IAC)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522262

MD (Same-Sex Oriented Males: Risk) India CG: UTIAC 12 Feb 2014

UTIAC a. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 criminalises same-sex sexual activity. On 2 July 2009 the Delhi High Court declared section 377 IPC to be in violation of the Indian Constitution insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private. However, in a judgment of 11 December 2013, the Supreme Court held that section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and found the declaration of the Delhi High Court to be legally unsustainable.
b. Prosecutions for consensual sexual acts between males under section 377 IPC are, and have always been, extremely rare.
c. Some persons who are, or are perceived to be, same-sex oriented males suffer ill treatment, extortion, harassment and discrimination from the police and the general populace; however, the prevalence of such incidents is not such, even when taken cumulatively, that there can be said in general to be a real risk of an openly same-sex oriented male suffering treatment which is persecutory or which would otherwise reach the threshold required for protection under the Refugee Convention, Article 15(b) of the Qualification Directive, or Article 3 ECHR.
d. Same-sex orientation is seen socially, and within the close familial context, as being unacceptable in India. Circumstances for same-sex oriented males are improving, but progress is slow.
e. It would not, in general, be unreasonable or unduly harsh for an open same-sex oriented male (or a person who is perceived to be such), who is able to demonstrate a real risk in his home area because of his particular circumstances, to relocate internally to a major city within India.
f. India has a large, robust and accessible LGBTI activist and support network, mainly to be found in the large cities.

Eshun, O”Connor UTJJ
[2014] UKUT 65 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522260

B v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deportation – Hardial Singh – Dismissed): SIAC 29 Jan 2014

[2014] UKSIAC 09/2005
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522152

Syed and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 4 Mar 2014

Both cass raised issues concerning the qualifications necessary for the grant of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant or a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant under the points based system in Part 6A of the Immigration Rules.

Richards, Patten, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 196
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.521953

TVN, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 11 Nov 2021

Application for judicial review on behalf of TVN against a decision made by the Single Competent Authority acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which the SCA reached the decision that the Claimant was, on the balance of probabilities, not a victim of modern slavery.

Mr David Lock QC
[2021] EWHC 3019 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.669806

BH (Policies/Information: SOS’s Duties) Iraq: UTIAC 14 May 2020

(a) The Secretary of State has a duty to reach decisions that are in accordance with her policies in the immigration field. Where there appears to be a policy that is not otherwise apparent and which may throw doubt on the Secretary of State’s case before the tribunal, she is under a duty to make a relevant policy known to the Tribunal, whether or not the policy is published and so available in the public domain. Despite their expertise, judges in the Immigration and Asylum Chambers cannot reasonably be expected to possess comprehensive knowledge of each and every policy of the Secretary of State in the immigration field.
(b) In protection appeals (and probably in other kinds of immigration appeals), the Secretary of State has a duty not to mislead, which requires her to draw attention to documents etc under her control or in the possession of another government department, which are not in the public domain, and which she knows or ought to know undermine or qualify her case.
(c) There is a clear distinction between information and policy: the fact that country information is contained in a COI (country of origin) document published by the Secretary of State does not, without more, make that information subject to the duty in sub-paragraph (a) above.

[2020] UKUT 189 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.653921

MZ (Hospital Order: Whether a ‘Foreign Criminal’): UTIAC 15 Jun 2020

An individual sentenced to a hospital order following a finding under section 5 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 that he ‘is under a disability and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him’ is neither subject to section 117C of the 2002 Act (as amended) nor to paragraphs A398-399 of the Immigration Rules. He is excluded from the statutory provisions by section 117D(3)(a) and from the Immigration Rules concerning deportation.
[Note: The difference between OLO and Andell to which the judge refers at paras [10] to [13] is now resolved in SC (paras A398-339D: ‘foreign criminal’: procedure) Albania [2020] UKUT 187 (IAC).]

[2020] UKUT 225 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.653927

L, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: UTIAC 10 Jul 2020

(1) A decision to remove a person (P) from the United Kingdom under immigration powers will not be unlawful by reason of the fact that it is predicated upon an earlier decision which has not, at the time of removal, been found to be unlawful, but which later is so found: AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 59; Niaz (NIAA 2002 s.104: pending appeal) [2019] UKUT 399 (IAC).
(2) The fact that P’s removal was not unlawful will not necessarily preclude a court or tribunal on judicial review from ordering P’s return. The fact it was lawful will, however, be a ‘highly material factor against the exercise of such discretion’: Lewis v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1749 (Admin).
(3) Where P’s removal was unlawful, by reference to the position at the time of removal, that fact should not only constitute the starting point for the Tribunal’s consideration of the exercise of its discretion to order return, but is also likely to be a weighty factor in favour of making such an order. The same is true where the effect of P’s removal has been to deprive P of an in-country right of appeal.

[2020] UKUT 267 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.653930

SC (Paras A398 – 339D: ‘Foreign Criminal’: Procedure) Albania: UTIAC 27 Apr 2020

1. Paragraph A398 of the immigration rules governs each of the rules in Part 14 that follows it. The expression ‘foreign criminal’ in paragraph A398 is to be construed by reference to the definition of that expression in section 117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: OLO and Others (para 398 – ‘foreign criminal’) [2016] UKUT 56 affirmed; Andell (foreign criminal – para 398) [2018] UKUT 198 not followed.
2. A foreign national who has been convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence is not, by reason of that conviction, a ‘foreign criminal’ for the purposes of paragraphs A398-399D of the rules.
3. In the absence of a material change in circumstances or prior misleading of the Tribunal, it will be a very rare case in which the important considerations of finality and proper use of the appeals procedure are displaced in favour of revisiting and varying or revoking an interlocutory order: Gardner-Shaw (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKUT 419 followed.

[2020] UKUT 187 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.653920

Kariharan and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 5 Dec 2001

The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new right of appeal, but the applicants fell outside the policy which added certain other categories. The Home Secretary said that the issues which might be raised by such an appeal were identical with those which had already been considered. The claimants asserted that different issues did arise, and that a legitimate expectation had been created.
Held: The section creating the right of appeal was intended to refer to decisions ‘in relation to that person’s entitlement to enter or remain’, and not to decisions to remove. The restriction of the policy to decisions after a certain date was neither unlawful nor irrational. No legitimate expectation had been created and broken. The cases was rejected save as to the suggestion that differing issues arose.

Justice Stanley Burnton
[2001] EWHC Admin 1004
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65, Human Rights Act 1998 6(1), Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6, Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2000 (2000 No. 2444)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – St Brice and Another v Southwark London Borough Council CA 17-Jul-2001
The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Newham and Manik Bibi and Ataya Al-Nashed CA 26-Apr-2001
CS The housing authority had mistakenly thought that it was obliged to re-house the applicants under the Act with secure accommodation, and promised them accordingly.
Held: That promise had created a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.167282

Ahmed v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 14 Feb 2014

Application for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing the Claimant’s application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, having regard to spousal rights and the circumstances when an applicant who fails to adhere to the basic requirements in the Immigration Rules should nonetheless be entitled to rely on Article 8 to found a basis to remain.

Green J
[2014] EWHC 300 (Admin)
Bailii
Immigration Rules

Immigration, Human Rights, Family

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521234

Procura Della Repubblica v M: ECJ 6 Feb 2014

ECJ Opinion – Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) – Ne bis in idem principle – Pre – trial finding of ‘non-lieu’ (‘no case to answer’) barring further prosecution of the same person for the same facts – Finding subject to the possibility of new facts and/or evidence emerging – Criminal prosecution in another Member State for an offence arising out of the same facts

Sharpston AG
C-398/12, [2014] EUECJ C-398/12
Bailii
European

Immigration

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521192

IA (Iran) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department (Scotland): SC 29 Jan 2014

The appellant Iranian challenged refusal of his claim for asylum. He had been granted refugee status in Iraq and in Turkey by the United Nations commission, but on arrival in the UK, his asylum claim had been rejected on the basis of the credibility of his assertions.
Held: The appeal failed. Those making such decisions had an independent responsibility to make their own assessments, and were not bound by decisions of the UN Commissioners. A decision of the Commissioner should be departed form only after close inspection, but there was no burden on him to justify any such departure.
‘Although little may be known about the actual process of decision-making by UNHCR in granting refugee status in an individual case, the accumulated and unrivalled expertise of this organisation, its experience in working with governments throughout the world, the development, promotion and enforcement of procedures of high standard and consistent decision-making in the field of refugee status determinations must invest its decisions with considerable authority.’

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 6, [2014] 1 WLR 384, 2014 SC (UKSC) 105, [2014] WLR(D) 36, 2014 SCLR 366, 2014 GWD 4-86, 2014 SLT 598, [2014] 1 All ER 1015, [2014] Imm AR 613, UKSC 2012/0157
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)
Scotland
Citing:
Leave – IA, Re Leave To Appeal SCS 1-Apr-2011
Extra Division, Inner House – The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal rejecting his appeals. The latter decision dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the respondent, the Home . .
Cited – KK (Recognition Elsewhere As Refugee) Democratic Republic of Congo IAT 25-Feb-2005
Ouseley J P said: ‘As I have noted, independent documentary evidence regarding the procedures used to issue the appellant the refugee certificate in Iraq and refugee status in Turkey by the UNHCR was not before me, nor evidence regarding on what . .
Cited – MM (Iran) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 17-Nov-2010
Appeal against the order of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal following a reconsideration hearing that the tribunal’s earlier determination promulgated dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of his asylum claim . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .

Cited by:
Cited – EM (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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521154

Khan v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 11 Feb 2014

The claimant appealed against rejection of his request for judicial review of a adecision of the respondent not to revoke a deportation order.
Held: The appeal failed.

Moore-Bick, Tomplinson, McCombe LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 88, [2014] 2 All ER 973, [2014] WLR(D) 60, [2014] 1 WLR 3173, [2014] Imm AR 768
Bailii, WLRD
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 96(1)
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521135

HE v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Nov 2013

Appeal against a costs order in an immigration case. The claimant, who is the appellant in judicial review proceedings, asserts that he was substantially successful in his claim and that therefore he ought to have recovered the costs of the action. The claimant says that the judge erred in principle in only awarding him a small proportion of those costs.

Jackson, Black LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1846
Bailii
England and Wales

Costs, Immigration

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521063