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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 96 cases, and was prepared on 06 August 2015.

 
Kibiti -v- Home Secretary [2000] Imm AR 594
2000
CA
Buxton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ
Immigration
The court took a strict approach to the issue of admission of evidence which might demnostrate that the decision under appeal was based upon an error of fact. The appellant was a citizen of the Congo who had been refused asylum and failed in his appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had concluded that there was a state of civil war in the Congo, a view which was challenged by the appellant by reference to a report written after the Tribunal hearing. Held: The court rejected the appeal, but undertook a detailed review of the Tribunal's conclusions on the material available to it. Peter Gibson LJ said the appellant had sought to rely on a report by a Dr Manley, which had not been before the Tribunal at the time of its hearing but was provided to it when permission was asked to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Peter Gibson LJ agreed with the approach that whih prevented the material being received by the Court, on the grounds that the Court could only consider "any question of law material to the determination": "This Court… is confined to looking to see whether the Tribunal erred in some manner in relation to the facts and material which were before the Tribunal. It is obvious that material not put to the Tribunal could not be used to identify an error of law on the part of the Tribunal." and "It is inappropriate for new material to be presented to this Court which could not in any way have affected the decision of the Tribunal below. It is of course open to an applicant to present such new material to the Secretary of State once the appellate process relating to the earlier decision has been exhausted; and I do not doubt that the Secretary of State would take into account material such as that from Dr Manley, as an expert in the relevant field."
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Turgut [2000] Imm LR 306
2000


Immigration

1 Citers


 
Petition of Daljit Singh -v- The Right Honourable Jack Straw, MP for Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 3
7 Jan 2000
SCS
Lord Weir
Scotland, Immigration
The point made by Collins J in Chugtai may be particularly relevant where "a question of credibility arises which has to be resolved by an adjudicator'".
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Jain (Asylum Seekers, Homosexuality, Persecution) India [2000] UKIAT 00579
8 Jan 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Petition of Sofia Kim (Ap) for Judical Review of A Declaration of an Immigration Officer and Directions for the Petitioner's Removal From United Kingd; SCS 11-Jan-2000 -

 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Quaquah; QBD 20-Jan-2000 - Gazette, 20 January 2000; Times, 21 January 2000
 
Nalliah Karanakaran -v- Secretary of State For The Home Department Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 16 February 2000; Gazette, 09 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 11; [2000] 2 All ER 449
25 Jan 2000
CA

Immigration
Where the applicant for asylum could show that members of his family had been killed or persecuted by the authorities, the level of proof required that he would be under threat was not the normal civil standard of proof, but that of a reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution, and not the usual civil balance of probabilities. The same standard of proof should apply when considering whether internal relocation or flight was a reasonable alternative for the applicant. The issues for a decision-maker are questions not of hard fact but of evaluation. The person considering an applicant's claim for asylum must reach his decision by making an assessment in the light of all the available material in the case.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Chaudhry) -v- Special Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWHC Admin 62
26 Jan 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut; CA 28-Jan-2000 - Times, 15 February 2000; Gazette, 17 February 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 22; [2001] 1 All ER 719
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State ex parte Turgat Unreported, 28 January 2000
28 Jan 2000
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Administrative, Immigration, Human Rights


 
Mahmood, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWHC Admin 632
2 Feb 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
R -v- Eyck; R -v- Hadakoglu Gazette, 03 February 2000
3 Feb 2000
CACD

Crime, Immigration
The offence of being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for illegal entry of aliens into the United Kingdom was committed if the constituents of the offence were shown. That did not necessitate the actual bringing of someone into the UK. Here the defendant had driven a van onto a ferry bound for Dover when illegal immigrants were discovered inside. The offence was complete.
Immigration Act 1971 25 (1) (a)

 
Regina -v- Eyck; R -v- Hadakoglu Times, 08 February 2000
8 Feb 2000
CACD

Crime, Immigration
The offence of being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for illegal entry of aliens into the United Kingdom was committed if the constituents of the offence were shown. That did not necessitate the actual bringing of someone into the UK. Here the defendant had driven a van onto a ferry bound for Dover when illegal immigrants were discovered inside. The offence was complete.
Immigration Act 1971 25 (1) (a)

 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Janet Wanyoike HC Admin 288
10 Feb 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Special Adjudicator of Immigration Appellate Authority ex parte Hasan Akdogan [2000] EWHC Admin 289
11 Feb 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Haddad (Paragraph 340 of Hc 395, Co-Operation) (Algeria) [2000] UKIAT 00008
15 Feb 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
R and Secretary of State for Home Department and Immigration Appeal Tribunal -v- ex parte Lou Bahaman Bogou [2000] EWHC Admin 292
15 Feb 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Dupovac -v- Secretary of State for the Home Office Times, 16 February 2000
16 Feb 2000
CA

Immigration
An asylum seeker awaiting the determination of an appeal who left the UK, was to be deemed by the Act to have abandoned the appeal. There was no part of the wording which allowed the court to differentiate between several classes of applicant. Since the Secretary could conclude that an appeal had been abandoned for any reason, the words could only mean that leaving the UK was determinative of abandonment.

 
Starred Ahmed (Restriction of Submissions) (Pakistan) [2000] UKIAT 00002
25 Feb 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
TI -v- United Kingdom [2000] INLR 211; [2000] ECHR 705
7 Mar 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Immigration
The Dublin II Regulation did not absolve the United Kingdom from responsibility to ensure that a decision to expel an asylum seeker to another Member State did not expose him, at one remove, to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. "In the present case, the applicant is threatened with removal to Germany, where a deportation order was previously issued to remove him to Sri Lanka. It is accepted by all parties that the applicant is not, as such, threatened with any treatment contrary to Article 3 in Germany. His removal to Germany is however one link in a possible chain of events which might result in his return to Sri Lanka where it is alleged that he would face the real risk of such treatment.
The Court finds that the indirect removal in this case to an intermediary country, which is also a Contracting State, does not affect the responsibility of the United Kingdom to ensure that the applicant is not, as a result of its decision to expel, exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Nor can the United Kingdom rely automatically in that context on the arrangements made in the Dublin Convention concerning the attribution of responsibility between European countries for deciding asylum claims. Where States establish international agreements, to pursue co-operation in certain fields of activities, there may be implications for the protection of fundamental rights. It would be incompatible with the purpose and object of the Convention if Contracting States were thereby absolved from their responsibility under the Convention in relation to the field of activity covered by such attribution (see e.g. Waite and Kennedy v Germany judgment of 18 February 1999, Reports 1999, § 67). The Court notes the comments of the UNHCR that, while the Dublin Convention may pursue laudable objectives, its effectiveness may be undermined in practice by the differing approaches adopted by Contracting States to the scope of protection offered."
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Wanyoike Times, 10 March 2000; Gazette, 09 March 2000
10 Mar 2000
QBD

Immigration
A chairman of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal had refused to allow an appeal against an earlier order. He then discovered that certain information had not been made available to him. He re-opened his decision, but came to the same conclusion. The applicant sought to review that decision, on the grounds that an expectation had been created that he would be granted leave to appeal. His original decision had been a determination, and so was not open to such a review, or reconsideration.

 
Nisar Ahmed for Judicial Review of A Decision of an Immigration Officer To Refuse the Petitioner Leave To Enter the United Kingdom [2000] ScotCS 65
14 Mar 2000
OHCS
Lord Eassie
Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Gurjit Singh for Judicial Review of A Determination of (I) A Special Adjudicator for (Ii) the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 64
14 Mar 2000
OHCS
Lord Nimmo Smith
Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Asif Times, 14 March 2000
14 Mar 2000
QBD

Immigration
When an applicant for asylum could only base his claim of a connection with this country by demonstrating a history of financial support provided by his family from this country, it was not irrational or unreasonable for the Home Secretary to deem such connection insufficient.

 
Konan -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 3041
20 Mar 2000
CA
Simon Brown, Hale LJJ, Sir Christopher Staunton
Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Anderson, Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi; QBD 22-Mar-2000 - Times, 22 March 2000
 
Mohammed Akhtar [2000] ScotCS 79
23 Mar 2000
SCS

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Adermi Oladele Adewole and Special Adjudicator -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWHC Admin 309
27 Mar 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Saleem Ahmed for Judicial Review of Decisions of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Dated 10Th August 1997, 29Th January 1998 and 7Th May 199 [2000] ScotCS 85
28 Mar 2000
SCS
Lord Nimmo Smith
Scotland, Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Starred Sepet & Bulbul (Conscientious Objection: Convention Reason?) (Turkey) [2000] UKIAT 00003
7 Apr 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Kuijer -v- Council of the European Union Case T-188/98 Times, 14 April 2000
14 Apr 2000
ECJ

European, Immigration, Administrative
An applicant sought access to documents of the Council of the European Union relating to asylum. The decision of the Council to refuse access to the documents was on the grounds that the material was politically sensitive, and disclosure would be against the public interest. The council failed however to consider the status of the separate documents separately, and so the decision was invalid. The default position was that Council documents should be made available, and the ability to withhold related to individual documents.
Council Decision 93/731/EC on Public Access to Council documents

 
Kumar, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC 451 (Admin)
17 Apr 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Kaba -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Case C-356/98 Times, 19 April 2000
19 Apr 2000
ECJ

Immigration, European
UK rules required that a wife of a migrant European worker must be resident for four years before applying for indefinite leave to remain, but a spouse of a person settled in the UK need only be resident for one year. There was no discrimination contrary to European Law which prevented rules restricting the free movement of workers. The right sought by the application went beyond the rights protected by the EU Treaty. The residential rights of migrant workers are not unconditional.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for community workers, article 7(2) - ECTreaty Article 234

 
Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Dzhygun (Ukraine) [2000] UKIAT 00TH00728
17 May 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Carcabuk -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Unreported, 18 May 2000
18 May 2000
IAT
Collins J
Immigration, Litigation Practice
Collins J considered the circumstances under which a party could withdraw a concession previously given. Collins J said: "It is in our judgment important to identify the precise nature of any so-called concession. If it is of fact . . the adjudicator should not go behind it. Accordingly, if facts are agreed, the adjudicator should accept whatever is agreed. Equally, if a concession is clearly made by a HOPO that an appellant is telling the truth either generally or on specific matters, the adjudicator may raise with the HOPO his doubts whether the concession as appropriate but, if it is maintained, he should accept it. But there is all the difference in the world between a concession and a failure to challenge. The former will bind the adjudicator, the latter will not. Furthermore, any concession can be withdrawn so that, for example, the case before the Tribunal can be presented in a different way to that before the adjudicator. It is open to a HOPO to withdraw a concession made before an adjudicator before the hearing is concluded, but the appellant must be given a proper opportunity to deal with the new case against him and unless there is good reason for the withdrawal such as the discovery of fresh material we doubt that the adjudicator should permit any adjournment which such withdrawal would be likely to necessitate . .
We can summarise the position as follows:- . .
(3) If the HOPO wishes to withdraw any concession made: in a refusal letter or explanatory statement, he must inform the appellant or his advisor as soon as possible and it will be for the adjudicator to decide if an application for an adjournment to enable the new case to be met is made, whether to grant it. If he does not, the concession will stand . .
(6) A concession can be withdrawn but, if a HOPO seeks to do this, the adjudicator must be satisfied that the appellant will not be prejudiced if the hearing continues and should only allow an adjournment if persuaded that there was good reason to have made and to withdraw the concession"
1 Citers



 
 B -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; CA 18-May-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 158; [2000] Imm AR 478; [2000] INLR 361; [2000] 2 CMLR 1086

 
 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department -v- Shafiq Ur Rehman; CA 23-May-2000 - Times, 31 May 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 168
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Savas Times, 23 May 2000; C-37/98; [2000] ECR 1-2927; [2000] EUECJ C-37/98
23 May 2000
ECJ

Immigration, European
A convention between the European Union and Turkey had direct effect under one article, but was not sufficiently detailed in other provisions to give a right to an individual to enforce its provisions. The article required Turkish nationals not to be treated worse than EU nationals, but did not itself confer a right of residence.
Europa EEC-Turkey Association - Restrictions on freedom of establishment and right of residence - Article 13 of the Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional Protocol - Direct effect - Scope - Turkish national unlawfully present in the host Member State.
Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Europa ] - [ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Deniz Mersin [2000] EWHC Admin 348; [2000] INLR 511
25 May 2000
Admn
Elias J
Immigration
The Claimant who had established his refugee status. Held: Where a person has established a right, or something akin to a right, to a status or a benefit, it is incumbent on the relevant authority to grant the status or benefit without unreasonable delay.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shen, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC Admin 452
25 May 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Berhe Times, 26 May 2000
26 May 2000
CA

Immigration
An immigration appeal tribunal which delivered its decision out of time had the power under the rules to grant to itself an extension of time to allow the judgment to be delivered. It was not essential that reasons be given for such an extension, nor that the parties be given an opportunity to be heard as to such an extension. There were powerful reasons for expecting a tribunal normally to give such reasons, but their absence did not make the decision a nullity.
Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 2070

 
Regina -v- an Immigration Officer ex parte John Xuereb [2000] EWHC Admin 352
26 May 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Yelocagi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 31 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000
31 May 2000
CA

Immigration
Even though the parties to an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had agreed that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for a re-hearing, where the Appeal Tribunal found that there was enough in the original decision to allow them to determine the appeal without remitting it, they had a duty to decide the appeal and not to remit it.
Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1993 No 1661, 35

 
Popatiaa, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWHC 556 (QB)
7 Jun 2000
QBD
Sullivan J
Immigration
Applications by overstayers.
[ Bailii ]
 
Smith -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Liberia) [2000] UKIAT 00TH02130
9 Jun 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Asifa Saleem -v- Secretary of State for Home Department Times, 22 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 186; [2001] 1 WLR 443
13 Jun 2000
CA
Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Hale
Judicial Review, Immigration, Human Rights
A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator's determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power to make rules, but the receipt of the determination was fundamental to the exercise of the rights under the Act. "There is an analogy here with the principles established under Article 6 of the ECHR. Immigration and asylum cases have not been held by the ECHR to be 'the determination of his civil rights and obligations' for the purpose of Article 6. Furthermore, Article 6 does not guarantee a right of appeal. But if the State establishes such a right it must ensure that people within its jurisdiction enjoy the fundamental guarantees in Article 6". The right of appeal to an independent appellate body was a fundamental or basic right akin to the right of unimpeded access to a court, an infringement of which must be either expressly authorised by or arise by necessary implication from an Act of Parliament.
Immigration Act 1971 - Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 2070 - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Xuereb Times, 14 June 2000
14 Jun 2000
QBD

Health, Immigration
The fact that an alien was detained under the Mental Health Acts did not mean that he could not be ordered to be removed and returned to his own country. The power given to the Secretary of State was discretionary, and though the treatment he might receive was of a lower standard, it was not an unreasonable exercise of the discretion. He also retained the powers under the earlier act and could rely upon those powers. The later Act was not an exhaustive statement of his powers.
Mental Health Act 1983 86 - Immigration Act 1971 SCh 2

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Shefki Gashi and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Artan Gjoka [2000] EWHC Admin 356
15 Jun 2000
Admn

Immigration
When dealing with the argument that there had been delay in dealing with the applications which amounted to a breach of the requirement of the Dublin Convention that the application should be dealt with expeditiously: "I have no doubt that these arguments must be rejected. While naturally the Dublin Convention has regard to the need for those seeking asylum to know their fate as soon as is reasonably possible, it is concerned with the allocation of responsibility for considering claims and caring for refugees. .. . the ratification by the government of a Treaty may create a legitimate expectation that its terms will be applied in dealing with an individual affected by it. That will only be if there is nothing else to show how the Government will act and no statement of policy. Here the respondent has quite clearly indicated that he intends to make use of his powers under s. 2 of the 1996 Act and to apply the Dublin Convention accordingly. In any event, I cannot accept that an individual can have any rights or expectations under the Dublin Convention since it is concerned not to confer benefits on the individual but to ascertain which state should be responsible for dealing with his claim. It may confer benefits on him indirectly in as much as he will not be passed from one state to another and back again and thus ascertaining that responsibility will take less time than if there was no Dublin Convention."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Srimanoharan -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 29 June 2000
29 Jun 2000
CA

Immigration
It was not proper for counsel to raise at an appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, a point which had not been argued at the appeal tribunal with a suggestion that the case be remitted to the tribunal for a re-hearing. The argument that the applicant properly feared prosecution rather than persecution had not been developed, and it was not for the Appeal Tribunal itself to address a point which had not been raised before it.
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9

 
Mapere, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin); [2001] Imm AR 89
3 Jul 2000
Admn
Sulivan J
Immigration, Administrative
To establish a legitimate expectation, the assurances relied on should be assurances that have been given by the decision-maker: "it would be wrong in principle for courts to rule that a decision-maker's discretion should be limited by an assurance given by some other person".
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred N -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nigeria) [2001] UKIAT 00TH2345
3 Jul 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Horvath -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 7-Jul-2000 - Times, 07 July 2000; [2000] UKHL 37; [2000] 3 WLR 379; [2000] 3 All ER 577; [2001] 1 AC 489
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Yousaf Same -v- Same, Ex parte Jamil Times, 11 July 2000; Gazette, 20 July 2000; [1999] EWHC Admin 776
11 Jul 2000
CA

Immigration
A failure to appear at an earlier appeal which was through no fault of the appellant, should not be used by the Secretary as an excuse to defeat an appeal under the section. The Secretary of State should not treat the section as a safety net or fall back. It was in fact a secondary appeal, and its provisions should not be defeated by a merely technical defect.
Immigration Act 1971 s 20 - Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 Sch 2
[ Bailii ]
 
Jabari -v- Turkey 40035/98; (2000) 9 BHRC 1; [2000] ECHR 368; [2000] ECHR 369; [2001] INLR 136; [2011] ECHR 2388
11 Jul 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Immigration
A "rigorous scrutiny" was to be conducted of a claim that an individual's deportation to a third country would expose him to treatment prohibited by Article 3, before it could be rejected. Held: "If the State is to avoid breach of Article 3 by removal of an individual to another territory where he might be ill treated or whence he might be sent elsewhere and ill treated there, the authorities of the first State plainly have to apprise themselves of the relevant law and practice of the place to which the removal will be effected. Otherwise they cannot know whether their actions will violate the ECHR or not. This is not a distinct, separate or adjectival duty, but a necessary incident of the substantive obligation to fulfil Article 3. It is underlined by the need of rigorous scrutiny where an individual claims that expulsion will expose him to Article 3 ill treatment."
European Convention on Human Rights 3
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Harjinder Singh for Judicial Review of A Determination of A Special Adjudicator and of A Determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
12 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord Nimmo Smith
Scotland, Immigration

[ ScotC ]
 
Jasvir Singh Against the Final Determination By the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 194
12 Jul 2000
SCS

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Harjinder Singh for Judicial Review of a Determination of a Special Adjudicator and of a Determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 193
12 Jul 2000
SCS

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department, a Special Adjudicator ex parte Mohammed Imran Amin [2000] EWHC Admin 371
17 Jul 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Popatia and Another Times, 18 July 2000
18 Jul 2000
QBD

Immigration
Where a notice of intention to deport had been issued, but had not come to the attention of the proposed deportee, this would not work to break the period of time after which the applicant could claim a 14 year residence concession. Though the procedures had been lawful at the time, the legitimate expectation created by the non-service must take precedence.

 
Syed Nadeem Hussain Shah -v- Decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 207
20 Jul 2000
SCS

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Syed Nadeem Hussain Shah -v- Decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
20 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord Milligan
Scotland, Immigration

[ ScotC ]
 
Al Fayed, (Regina On The Application of) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department (No. 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 523
26 Jul 2000
CA
Nourse V P, Kennedy, Rix LJJ
Immigration
The claimant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision not to allow his naturalisation as a British citizen.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi; CA 3-Aug-2000 - Times, 03 August 2000; Gazette, 07 September 2000
 
Starred FD (Protection, UnMIK, Arif, IFA, Art1D) (Kosovo) CG [2000] UKIAT 00001; [2000] INLR 372; [2000] Imm AR 652
30 Aug 2000
IAT
Ockleton DP
Immigration
The claimant resisted his return to Albania after refusal of asylum. He asserted a well founded fear of perscution. Held: The Tribunal summarised the position as follow: "(i) Protection offered by UNMIK arid KFOR is, in law, capable of being 'the protection of his country', within the meaning of Article IA(2) of the Convention, for a citizen of the Federal republic of Yugoslavia who comes from Kosovo.
(ii) Kosovo, however, is not capable of being the country of a person's nationality within the meaning of that Article.
(iii) The 'reversed burden' in Arif applies only where it is accepted that the claimant was in the past a refugee, and is capable of being discharged by any evidence which could support a finding of a relevant change of circumstances.
(iv) No questions of 'internal flight', 'reasonableness', or 'undue hardship' arise when a person has no well-founded fear of persecution in his own home area.
(v) Article ID of the Convention does not apply to persons receiving assistance from UNMIK and KFOR."
[ Bailii ]

 
 Nmaju and Others -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal; CA 6-Sep-2000 - Times, 06 September 2000; Gazette, 21 September 2000

 
 Regina -v- Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha; CA 7-Sep-2000 - Gazette, 07 September 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 2539; [2000] EWCA Civ 201; Times, 18 July 2000
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Fayed Times, 07 September 2000
7 Sep 2000
CA

Immigration, Judicial Review, Media
A newspaper report written by a journalist quoting an unnamed if reliable source as to words spoken by the Secretary of State was insufficient to found the serious allegation that the Secretary had prejudged the applicant's application for naturalisation. The report suffered three defects. The source was unnamed, the reporter was himself quoting a party who had not heard the words himself, and the context in which the words had been spoken was unclear. Even had they been established, the words alleged would be insufficient to support the alleged pre-judgement.


 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 7-Sep-2000 - Times, 07 September 2000
 
Revenko -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 08 September 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000
8 Sep 2000
CA

Immigration
A stateless asylum applicant who was also unable to return to his previous country of habitual residence, did not become a refugee under the Convention until he displayed a well founded fear of persecution. It was not enough to be unable to return to his former country of residence. The words of the convention clearly made the condition applicable throughout each term of the clause.
Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

 
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs -v- Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 55
1 Oct 2000

Gummow J
Commonwealth, Human Rights, Immigration
(High Court of Australia) The court recognised a right in sovereign states to give refuge to aliens fleeing from foreign persecution and to refuse to surrender such persons to the authorities of their home states: "there have been attempts which it is unnecessary to recount here to broaden the scope of the Convention itself by a Draft United Nations Convention on Territorial Asylum but these collapsed more than twenty years ago."
1 Citers


 
Starred Pardeepan (Pre-2000 Decision: Human Rights?) (Sri Lanka) [2000] UKIAT 00006
6 Oct 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Ondelio Lisungi -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC Admin 401
12 Oct 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Omoruyi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 03 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 258
12 Oct 2000
CA

Immigration
Where a person claimed asylum on the basis that he had a well founded fear of persecution, the potential acts of the persecutor he feared must be shown to have some connection with a reason under the Convention. Discrimination against the claimant for an unconnected purpose was not sufficient to found a claim. Here the claimant feared persecution by cult members if he returned home for refusing to surrender his father's body. In reality their animosity arose from that refusal and was not aimed at his own religious beliefs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Ullah Times, 17 October 2000
17 Oct 2000
QBD

Immigration, Administrative
The fact that a claimant had acquired British citizenship in one way did not take away his right in addition to apply for naturalisation arising from his rights by descent. The latter process would create additional rights for his own children, and he had the right to apply. There was nothing in the legislation to suggest that the two alternatives were mutually exclusive, and the Home Office's practice to the contrary was unlawful.
British Nationality Act 1981 6

 
Tientchu, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWCA Civ 385
18 Oct 2000
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Mnm (Surendran Guidelines for Adjudicators) (Kenya) [2000] UKIAT 00005
31 Oct 2000
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regiona -v- Special Adjudicator ex parte Gabi Ilarion Ragman [2000] EWHC Admin 411
1 Nov 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yiadom Case C-357/98 Times, 16 November 2000
16 Nov 2000
ECJ

Immigration, European
Where a citizen of a member state had been granted temporary admission, pending a final decision on whether she should be admitted or expelled, that decision was not one which could be classified as a 'decision concerning entry,' for the purposes of the directive, and by legal fiction the person was deemed to be out of the country, and accordingly was entitled to the procedural safeguards given by Article 9.
ECTreaty Article 234 - Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals - Immigration Act 1971 11(1)

 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bashir Lal [2000] EWHC Admin 420
20 Nov 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fadli Times, 12 December 2000; Gazette, 11 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 297
23 Nov 2000
CA

Immigration
A claim for political asylum could not be founded on the basis that the applicant would face the alternatives of imprisonment for refusing conscription, or being conscripted and facing attack from anti-government terrorists. The position of former soldiers might be different, since they might cease to have the protection allowed to a serving soldier. In effect the applicant sought a surrogate protection from conflict. There appears no distinction to be made under the Convention between soldiers engaged on warlike activities against an external force, and those engaged fighting terrorists.
[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Gomez (Non-State Actors: Acero-Garces Disapproved) (Colombia) [2000] UKIAT 00007; [2001] 1 WLR 549; [2000] INLR 549
24 Nov 2000
IAT
Mr Justice Collins (President), Dr HH Storey, G Warr
Immigration
Dr Storey said: "It will always be necessary to examine whether or not the normal lines of political and administrative responsibility have become distorted by history and events in that particular country. This perception also explains why refugee law has come to recognise that in certain circumstances 'neutrality' can constitute a political opinion. In certain circumstances, for example where both sides operate simplistic ideas of political loyalty and political treachery, fence-sitting can be considered a highly political act."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte R Times, 29 November 2000
29 Nov 2000
QBD

Immigration, Human Rights
An applicant for asylum had had his case rejected and was separated from his family whose similar application had not yet been finally determined, but he remained in close contact with them. He was imprisoned, and on his release ordered to be deported to Argentina. He complained, successfully that the effect would be to destroy any chance of family life. It was held that the effect of deporting him without waiting for the result of his wife's application was disproportionate in the effect it would have on his family life. No order was made on an undertaking from the Home Secretary to await that decision.
European Convention on Human Rights

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Roszkowski Times, 29 November 2000
29 Nov 2000
QBD

Immigration
Racial harassment consisting of behaviour not condoned by the state could not amount to torture. Differences in the apparent definitions of torture did not mean that a lower standard applied. Racist behaviour not condoned by the state, and which in this case did no extend beyond discrimination and harassment did not amount to torture. The torture referred to in the paragraph must relate to the substantive claim for asylum,and not to something extraneous. The torture must be either by the state or, if by non-agents then the state must be shown to have refused or been incapable of providing protection.
International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984

 
X -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 3026
7 Dec 2000
CA

Immigration, Health, Human Rights
The court considered the effect of an immigrant's mental illness on the Home Secretary's powers to refuse to grant him exceptional leave to enter or remain.
Immigration Act 1971 - Mental Health Act 1983 - Human Rights Act 1998
[ Bailii ]
 
X -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 311
7 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey, And Sir Swinton Thomas
Immigration, Health, Human Rights
The applicant applied for asylum, but suffered from schizophrenia. He had been refused entry and detained, and then his detention was transferred to a mental hospital by order of the Home Secretary, with a view to his return for treatment in Malta. The applicant alleged that the Secretary had no power to so order without going first to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Held: the Secretary's duties were not solely to look to the applicant's bests interests, but also to immigration control. Nevertheless it was argued that to move a person under treatment could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. In this case that argument failed. It could not be assumed that he would not receive proper health care in Malta. It was also argued that once subject to the Mental Health Act, he could only be dealt with under that Act. Parliament had not circumscribed the Home Secretary's Immigration Act powers, and those remained in effect. Appeal refused.
Immigration Act 1971 2(1)(b), 86(2) - Mental Health Act 1983 47, 86
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood; CA 8-Dec-2000 - Times, 09 January 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 840; [2000] All ER (D) 2191; [2000] EWCA Civ 315; [2001] HRLR 14; [2001] Fam Law 257; [2001] Imm AR 229; [2001] 1 FLR 756; [2001] UKHRR 307; (2001) 3 LGLR 23; [2001] ACD 38; [2001] 2 FCR 63; [2001] INLR 1
 
Regina on Application of Hasan Kaymak -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; Immigration Appeallate Authority and Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC Admin 431
13 Dec 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Isiko; Susan and Shemy Isiko [2000] EWCA Civ 346
20 Dec 2000
CA

Immigration

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Massaquoi -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 345
20 Dec 2000
CA

Immigration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- The Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Samaroo [2000] EWHC Admin 435
20 Dec 2000
Admn
Thomas J
Immigration, Judicial Review

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Noune -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 20 December 2000

 
 Holub and another -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; CA 20-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 343; [2001] 1 WLR 1359; [2001] ELR 401; [2001] Imm AR 282; [2001] INLR 219

 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur; HL 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 20 December 2000; Gazette, 25 January 2001; [2001] 1 All ER 593; [2001] 2 WLR 143; [2000] UKHL 67; [2001] 2 AC 477
 
Regina on Application of Altin Vallaj -v- A Special Adjudicator [2000] EWHC Admin 438
21 Dec 2000
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sheik; CA 22-Dec-2000 - Times, 22 December 2000; Gazette, 08 February 2001
 
Arquita -v- Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1889; 106 FCR 46
22 Dec 2000

Weinberg J
Commonwealth, Crime, Immigration
Federal Court of Australia - MIGRATION - refugees - application for protection visa - whether serious reasons for considering commission of serious non-political crime outside country of refuge - application of Art 1F(b) of Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - meaning of "serious reasons for considering".
1 Citers

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