Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Immigration - From: 1996 To: 1996

This page lists 81 cases, and was prepared on 06 August 2015.


 
 Goremsandu -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 1996 - [1996] Imm AR 250
 
Borissov -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 524
1996
CA
Hirst LJ
Immigration
The jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in asylum cases is not limited to questions of law, but the IAT should exercise great caution before interfering in a finding of fact and particularly where that finding derived from his view of a witness: "Thus the jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not limited to questions of law, and it is within the scope of their jurisdiction for them to review, if they see fit to do so, the special adjudicator's conclusions of fact, though no doubt this power will be sparingly exercised, and in any event, in accordance with general principles, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal will naturally be most reluctant to interfere with a finding of primary fact by the special adjudicator which is depended on his assessment of the reliability or credibility of a witness who has appeared before him".
1 Citers


 
T -v- Home Secretary [1996] AC 742
1996
HL
Lord Mustill
Immigration
Although it is easy to assume that the appellant invokes a 'right of asylum', no such right exists. Neither under international nor English municipal law does a fugitive have any direct right to insist on being received by a country of refuge. Domestic legislation must be viewed against the background of a complete absence of any common law right, either national or international, for a refugee to insist on being admitted to a foreign country.
1 Citers


 
Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Savchenkov [1996] Imm AR 28
1996


Immigration

1 Citers


 
Oniboyo [1996] IAR 370
1996
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Immigration
The court set out the test of what was a new claim for asylum.
1 Citers


 
Savchenko -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 28
1996
CA
MacCowan LJ
Immigration
The alleged group of Russian security guards at a hotel who feared victimisation by the mafia, did not exist independently of the persecution and were not protected as a group under the Convention: "The Secretary of State submits . . . that the concept of membership of a particular social group covers persecution in three types of case: (1) membership of a group defined by some innate or unchangeable characteristic of its members analogous to race, religion, nationality or political opinion, for example, their sex, linguistic background, tribe, family or class; (2) membership of a cohesive, homogeneous group whose members are in a close voluntary association for reasons which are fundamental to their rights, for example, a trade union activist; (3) former membership of a group covered by (2)."
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Owalabi Times, 03 January 1996
3 Jan 1996
QBD

Immigration
The Home Secretary may evaluate fresh material himself under the section, without always referring the case back to the adjudicator.
Immigration Act 1971 21
1 Cites


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ademola Onibiyo Independent, 24 January 1996; Times, 29 January 1996
24 Jan 1996
QBD

Immigration
The applicant, a Nigerian, applied for judicial review of the respondent's decision not to revoke a deportation order. He had overstayed his limited leave. He wanted the respondent to refer new material back to the immigration authorities. The respondent refused to treat this request as a new application. Held: A new ground for asylum arising after an application was rejected does not create a new appeal right.
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Vitale Times, 26 January 1996; [1996] All ER (EC) 461
26 Jan 1996
CA
Staughton LJ
Immigration, European
The appellant, who was an Italian citizen, claimed that Article 8(a) conferred an unlimited right to reside in the United Kingdom. Held: The court rejected that argument. Staughton LJ said that it was clear that Article 8(a) could not be taken to have replaced Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366: "Each of these directives was a measure adopted to give effect to the Treaty, and each of them contained the limitation on the right of residence that the visiting national should not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state. The right of residence conferred by art 8a is, therefore, in our view, still subject to that limitation. As for the submission that all nationals now have a general right of residence by virtue of art 8a, this seems to us to ignore the plain words that the art 8a right of residence is made subject to the limitations and conditions contained in measures such as these directives. In our judgment, there is at the moment no unqualified right of residence of the kind claimed by the appellant." Freedom of movement for workers in EU depended on intention to work- economic.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same -v- Same, Ex Parte Gawe; HL 15-Feb-1996 - Times, 17 February 1996; Gazette, 06 March 1996; Independent, 21 February 1996; [1996] 1 All ER 641; [1996] UKHL 9; [1996] Imm AR 46; [1996] 1 WLR 298
 
Regina -v- Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina -v- Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia Independent, 23 February 1996; Gazette, 20 March 1996; Times, 27 February 1996; (1996) 28 HLR 616
23 Feb 1996
CA

Housing, Immigration, European
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were overstaying.
Housing Act 1985 63 65
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Anandanadarajah [1996] EWCA Civ 1325; [1996] Imm AR 514
4 Mar 1996
CA
Neill LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Hobhouse LJ
Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Minteh, Regina (on the Application of) [1996] EWCA Civ 1339
8 Mar 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tan Te Lam -v- Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre; PC 27-Mar-1996 - [1996] UKPC 5; [1997] AC 97; [1996] 4 All ER 256
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo Gazette, 09 May 1996; [1996] QB 768; [1996] 2 All ER 901; [1996] Imm AR 370; [1996] EWCA Civ 1338; [1996] 2 WLR 490
28 Mar 1996
CA
Sir Thoma Bingham MR
Immigration
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of State to consider afresh further representations that the applicant was entitled to refugee status. Any person resisting deportation is liable to wish to draw out the process as long as possible and will often decline to accept any adverse decision continuing to protest that he has valid grounds for being treated as a refugee and that the Secretary of State is failing to fulfil his obligations under the Convention. When is the Secretary of State entitled to say enough is enough and draw a line under the application? Held: A distinction had to be drawn between the determination of the application which had been made and representations about that claim, and on the other hand the making of a fresh application. There was a continuing duty upon the Secretary of State to observe the Convention but there came a time when the Secretary of State, having heard the case which the applicant was making and having made such investigations as he thought proper, was entitled to come to a conclusion. The Secretary of State thereafter was not under any obligation to re-open that conclusion and need only consider further representations if they disclosed that there was some fresh basis, typically some change of circumstances, which, notwithstanding the earlier determination, would justify a fresh application and a conclusion on that fresh application that the applicant should have refugee status.
Sir Thoma Bingham MR discussed what would be a fresh asylum claim: "The acid test must always be whether, comparing the new claim with that earlier rejected, and excluding material on which the claimant could reasonably have been expected to rely in the earlier claim, the new claim is sufficiently different from the earlier claim to admit of a realistic prospect that a favourable view could be taken of the new claim despite the unfavourable conclusion reached on the earlier claim."
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Zackrocki [1996] EWCA Civ 1326
29 Mar 1996
CA

Immigration, Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 02 April 1996
2 Apr 1996
CA

Immigration
A second claim for asylum should be accepted after the first had been rejected if it was sufficiently different.
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1

 
Regina -v- Secertary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Zakrocki Times, 03 April 1996; Gazette, 01 May 1996
3 Apr 1996
QBD

Immigration
An extension of a visitor's stay in the UK was right in order to allow him to provide care in community of his British brother who had no other support.

 
Regina -v- Belaifa (Idis Ali) Gazette, 03 April 1996; (1996) 8 Admin LR 525
3 Apr 1996
CACD
Gage J
Immigration
A Judge must state the reasons for recommending deportation or the order will be invalid. The defendant had been convicted of criminal damage being reckless as to whether wlife was endangered. In the absence of such reasons the defendant would be put in a position of being unable effectively to exercise his right of appeal.
Immigration Act 1971 6(5)

 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Adrees [1996] EWCA Civ 1330
18 Apr 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Moya [1996] EWHC Admin 7
25 Apr 1996
Admn
Turner J
Immigration
Renewed application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Secretary of State, essentially refusing to follow an adjudicator's recommendation.
[ Bailii ]
 
In the Matter of Maria Egbaiyelo and In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum [1996] EWCA Crim 227
26 Apr 1996
QBD

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex Parte Tawafig and Another [1996] EWCA Civ 1328
26 Apr 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Special Adjudicator, Ex Parte Turus and Associated Applications Times, 13 May 1996
13 May 1996
QBD

Immigration
Belgium was not to be assumed to be a safe place to return asylum seeker if no claim for asylum could be made there.

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ravichandram; Similar Times, 13 May 1996
13 May 1996
QBD

Immigration
A Home Secretary's exercise of the right to decide if a second asylum application was valid subject to judicial review.
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 8

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naik [1996] EWHC Admin 12
22 May 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 T -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 22-May-1996 - Times, 23 May 1996; [1996] AC 742; [1996] Imm AR 443; [1996] 2 WLR 766; [1996] 2 All ER 865; [1996] UKHL 8
 
Regina -v- Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar Times, 10 July 1996; Independent, 03 July 1996; [1996] 29 HLR 147
25 Jun 1996
CA
Simon Brown, Waite, Neill LJJ
Immigration, Housing
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an 'other special reason' leaving them vulnerable within s59. Held: Such destitution was capable of being a reason within the Act, and the appeal against refusal of the assistance was allowed. Deprivation of asylum seekers of benefits made them vulnerable and in housing need. Case law suggested that the ejusdem generis rule should not be applied in construing the section so as to restrict its application.
Housing Act 1988 59(1)(c) - Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 30
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; CA 27-Jun-1996 - Gazette, 12 September 1996; Times, 27 June 1996; [1997] 1 WLR 275; [1996] 4 All ER 385; [1996] EWCA Civ 1293
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Saud [1996] EWHC Admin 36
16 Jul 1996
Admn

Immigration



 
 In Re Saidur Rahman; QBD 18-Jul-1996 - Times, 18 July 1996

 
 Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte De Melo and ex parte De Araujo; Admn 19-Jul-1996 - [1996] EWHC Admin 42; [1997] Imm AR 43

 
 Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Ndongala; Admn 22-Jul-1996 - [1996] EWHC Admin 47
 
Gashi (Asylum; Persecution) Kosovo [1996] UKIAT 13695
22 Jul 1996
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Urmaza Times, 23 July 1996; [1996] COD 479
23 Jul 1996
QBD
Sedley J
Immigration, Administrative
A deportee after a marriage was to be treated in the same way as others despite desertion from ship. The application of the Home Secretary's discretion under the Policy was in issue. The case "raises a novel question about the extent to which departmental policy is amenable to judicial review". "these legal controls upon the deployment of discretion and the implementation of policy demonstrate that the courts do not limit themselves to a bare rationality test ... such cases, as authority demonstrates, are not limited to irrationality; they include cases where an international policy has been disregarded or misapplied by one or more of a Minister's officials". And "the modern approach to a departmental policy document" by saying that "it follows that those cases in which the challenge has been predicated upon pure irrationality are illustrative but not exhaustive of the grounds of challenge". Policies should be applied consistently: "… similar situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified."
Immigration Act 1971 11(5)
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Ozen; Regina -v- Bozat; Regina -v- Kovaycin Gazette, 09 October 1996; Times, 15 August 1996
15 Aug 1996
CACD

Immigration
The Court of Appeal may itself supply the reasons for a recommendation for deportation curing a defect.

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Hastrup Times, 15 August 1996
15 Aug 1996
CA

Immigration
The Home Secretary had not fettered his discretion unlawfully by setting a rigid policy; He had left a possibility of may departing from it.

 
Kagema -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [1996] EWCA Civ 582; 1997 Imm AR 137
15 Aug 1996
CA
Aldous LJ
Immigration
The word 'persecution' must be given its ordinary and natural meaning when considering an application for asylum based on a fear of persecution.
Aldous LJ said: “Mr Ashford-Thom, who appeared for the Secretary of State, submitted that the word “persecution” was an ordinary English word and it was for the special adjudicator to decide whether the facts as found amounted to persecution for a Convention reason. The fact that a court might, or would have, come to a different conclusion did not mean that the special adjudicator had erred in law. That only arose if this court concluded that the special adjudicator’s conclusion was unreasonable, in the sense that it was a decision that no reasonable adjudicator could come to.
That I believe to be correct.”
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Sheqbayani [1996] EWHC Admin 68
30 Aug 1996
Admn

Immigration, Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Michel Francois Joseph Valmont [1996] EWCA Civ 598
4 Sep 1996
CA

Immigration
Appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decision to make the applicant subject to removal directions.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmud Ahmed [1996] EWCA Civ 631
2 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Zaheer Shah Bokhari [1996] EWCA Civ 628
2 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Chief Immigration Officer (Terminal 2) and a Special Adjudicator ex parte Lillia Hurtado De Rincon [1996] EWCA Civ 666
6 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte Anthony Pillai Francis Robinson; Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Robinson [1996] EWCA Civ 706; [1998] QB 929
11 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration
The Court of Appeal could only deal with an appeal on points of law arising from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, it could only allow an appeal on points of law in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction, either because the point was raised in the grounds or because it was an obvious point of law
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In the Matter of an Application for Leave To Move for Judicial Review R -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Yasmeen Ghaffar [1996] EWCA Civ 714
14 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review: Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Dauda Kamara [1996] EWCA Civ 730
15 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gomez-Zapata [1996] EWHC Admin 113
15 Oct 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Abderrahmane Kennouche and Nadia Kennouche [1996] EWCA Civ 746
16 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Chavrimootoo and Prem Chavirmootoo (a Minor) [1996] EWCA Civ 757
17 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Shah; Admn 25-Oct-1996 - Times, 12 November 1996; [1996] EWHC Admin 148; [1997] Imm AR 145

 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte T; Admn 28-Oct-1996 - [1996] EWHC Admin 164
 
Ivanov -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Georgia) [1996] UKIAT 12583
29 Oct 1996
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Officer ex parte Tosan Olaibi [1996] EWCA Civ 834
30 Oct 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Binali Kandemir [1996] EWCA Civ 918
8 Nov 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei [1996] EWHC Admin 214
8 Nov 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Lawrence Matu Kagema -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [1996] EWCA Civ 927
11 Nov 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mohammed Fayed Times, 18 November 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 946; [1998] 1 WLR 763; [1997] INLR 137; [1997] 1 All ER 228; [1997] COD 205
13 Nov 1996
CA
Woolf LJ MR
Immigration, Constitutional, Natural Justice, Judicial Review
The nature of the Secretary of State's objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated 'fishing expeditons' by those seeking a judicial review.
Woolf LJ MR said: "on an application for judicial review there is usually no [disclosure] because [disclosure] should be unnecessary because it is the obligation of the [defendant] public body in its evidence to make fresh disclosure to the court of the decision-making process."
British Nationality Act 1981 44(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ogunniyi [1996] EWHC Admin 230
14 Nov 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Chahal -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 15-Nov-1996 - Times, 28 November 1996; 70/1995; 22414/93; (1996) 23 EHRR 413; [1996] ECHR 54
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Akhtar [1996] EWCA Civ 988
18 Nov 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Nguyen Tuan Cuong and others -v- The Director of Immigration and others (Hong Kong) [1996] UKPC 43; [1997] 1 WLR 68
21 Nov 1996
PC
Lord Goff and Lord Hoffmann (Dissenting)
Commonwealth, Immigration
(Dissenting judgment) A person who satisfies [the Convention] definition is said to have refugee status. The Convention imposes obligations towards persons having that status. For immigration, Article 31 forbids the imposition of penalties on refugees arriving in another country without authorisation - unlike article 33, it is derogable under article 42. Refugee status is not an international passport which entitles the bearer to demand entry without let or hindrance into the territory of any contracting state. It is always a status relative to a particular country or countries. The obligations of contracting states are, first, not to punish a refugee who has entered directly from the country in which his life or freedom was threatened for a Convention reason and secondly, not to return him across the frontier of that country. In all other questions of immigration control: for example, punishment for illegal entry from a third country, or expulsion to a third country from which there is no danger of refoulement to a country falling within article 33, the question of whether a person has refugee status is simply irrelevant.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Singh; Kaur; Singh (By Next Friend) and and Kaur Chahal (By Next Friend) [1996] EWHC Admin 265
22 Nov 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Anthony Josiah Pratt [1996] EWCA Civ 1032
25 Nov 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Tonda, Hanif, Bi, Ali, Poselay, Ali and Akhtar [1996] EWHC Admin 298
29 Nov 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Manchester Stipendiary City Magistrates ex parte Pal Tagger [1996] EWHC Admin 300
29 Nov 1996
Admn
Staughton LJ, Tucker J
Immigration, Criminal Practice
The defendant appealed his conviction for illegal entry. He complained that after first being proceeded against for illegal working, it was an abuse now to pursue this prosecution. Held: No abuse had been established, only delay.
Immigration Act 1993 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Dolapo Omolara Martins [1996] EWHC Admin 302
29 Nov 1996
Admn
Mr Justice Scott Baker
Immigration
The Applicant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision declaring her to be an illegal entrant. She challenged a finding that at the time of entry she had intended to marry. Held: It was established that she had not told th etruth, and that her boyfriend was here before she came. There was very clear evidence to satisfy the Secretary of State that it was highly likely that she had the intention to marry when she entered the country in October 1992 and that she effectively deceived the Authorities as to her intention.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- A Special Adjudicator ex parte Gurpreet Singh [1996] EWCA Civ 1077
2 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ibrahim Janneh [1996] EWHC Admin 325
5 Dec 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mehmet Sorgucu [1996] EWCA Civ 1143
6 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Pirabaharam Gunaratnam [1996] EWCA Civ 1176
11 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman Times, 24 December 1996; Gazette, 29 January 1997; [1996] EWCA Civ 1183
11 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration
Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant.
Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Devarajah Nareshkumar [1996] EWHC Admin 349
11 Dec 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Harvinder Kaur -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [1996] EWCA Civ 1175
11 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Mustafa Ozsayan [1996] EWCA Civ 1207
13 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Abiodun Alabi Olusola Olayemi Alabi Alfred Toluwelote Alabi Gloria Obatilayo Alabi [1996] EWCA Civ 1215
13 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Zakariya Abdulgani Luhar [1996] EWHC Admin 360
13 Dec 1996
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Akhtar [1996] EWHC Admin 364
13 Dec 1996
Admn

Immigration
Application for judicial review of decision not to revoke deportation order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ahmed -v- Austria 24 EHRR 278; 25964/94; [1996] ECHR 63; (1996) 24 EHRR 278
17 Dec 1996
ECHR

Human Rights, Immigration
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
The court noted that Somalia (the country to which Austria had proposed expelling the applicant): "was still in a state of civil war and fighting was going on between a number of clans vying with each other for control of the country. There was no indication that the dangers to which the applicant would have been exposed in 1992 had ceased to exist or that any public authority would be able to protect him."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Fabian Martinez Quijano -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [1996] EWCA Civ 1244; 1997] Imm AR 227
18 Dec 1996
CA
Thorpe LJ, Morritt LJ, Roch LJ
Immigration
The appellant asylum seeker claimed to have been persecuted as a member of his stepfather's family, and thus of a particular social group, because members of a drug cartel had first persecuted the stepfather after he refused to co-operate with them and then also had made attacks on the appellant and other members of the family. The court asked what would constitute membership of a social group when looking at a well founded fear of prosecution as a member of such a group. Held: The claimant's appeal failed. The persecution arose not because the appellant was a member of the stepfather's family but because of his stepfather's refusal to co-operate. The cartel's decision to take punitive action against an individual related by marriage was fortuitous and incidental: "where the primary member of a family is not persecuted for a Convention reason, then the secondary members cannot be said to be persecuted for being members of the primary person's family."
Thorpe LJ: "Second I conclude that the persecution arises not because the appellant is a member of the Martinez family but because of his stepfather's no doubt laudable refusal to do business with the cartel. The persecution has that plain origin and the cartel's subsequent decision to take punitive action against an individual related by marriage is fortuitous and incidental as would have been a decision to take punitive action against the stepfather's partners and their employees had the business been of that dimension."
Morritt LJ: "But the fear of each member of the group is not derived from or a consequence of their relationship with each other or their membership of the group but because of their relationship, actual or as perceived by the drugs cartel, with the stepfather of the appellant. The stepfather was not persecuted for any Convention reason so that their individual relationship with him cannot cause a fear [for] a Convention reason either. In short the assumed fear of the appellant is not caused by his membership of a particular social group."
Roch LJ: "The anomaly that would arise in the present case, were the arguments of the appellant's counsel to be correct, that the appellant's stepfather would not be entitled to claim political asylum under the Convention, whereas all other members of the family would be entitled to political asylum, is merely an indicator that this family is not 'a social group' liable to persecution because it is 'a particular social group'. The other members of the family are being persecuted because they are related to the stepfather who has offended the drug cartel, who have decided to retaliate against the stepfather by persecuting him and members of his family. Who will constitute part of the family or social group is entirely the decision of the drug cartel. It may include those living in the stepfather's house who are not related to him by blood or marriage. These considerations underline, in my opinion, the fact that in the circumstances of this case the Martinez family is not 'a particular social group'."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Kumarasamy Sureshkumar [1996] EWCA Civ 1263
19 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Jeneba Deen-Koroma [1996] EWCA Civ 1284
20 Dec 1996
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.