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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 136 cases, and was prepared on 06 August 2015.

 
Ayman Ibrahim [2001] Imm AR 430; [2001] EWCA Civ 519
2001
CA

Immigration

1 Citers


 
Kacaj -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] INLR 354; [2002] Imm AR 213
2001
Admn
Collins J, Mr C M G Ockelton and Mr J Freeman
Immigration, Human Rights
The relevant test of whether an order returning an asylum applicant to another country would infringe his human rights was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner faced a real risk of relevant ill treatment if returned. There must be substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would face a real risk of the adverse effect which he or she claims to fear. A reviewing court must assess the judgment which would or might be made by an adjudicator on appeal: "although the [Convention] rights may be engaged, legitimate immigration control will almost certainly mean that derogation from the rights will be proper and will not be disproportionate."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Dritan Gashi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) Appeal No: 01TH02902
2001
IAT

Immigration
Referring to the decsision in Aissaoui, the tribunal set out guidelines: "(1) As a general rule it is best practice for an adjudicator hearing an appeal de novo not to read the Determination of a previous adjudicator unless expressly invited to do so, so as to avoid any misunderstanding of what has influenced him. There is no prohibition, however, on reading the Determination.
(2) If the adjudicator considers it appropriate to read the Determination, he should not do so until he has told the parties of his intention, and invited their comments.
(3) There will be instances where parties invite him to read the Determination because, for example, the findings of fact have been accepted, and the re-hearing is to consider the conclusions to be drawn from those findings. This invitation should be recorded in his Determination.
(4) The previous record of proceedings, and not the earlier Determination, can if necessary provide confirmation of what evidence was given at a previous hearing.
(5) If an Appellant does not attend the de novo hearing, an adjudicator may rely on the evidence given at the previous hearing when forming his independent view of the case, but without reference to an earlier Determination.
(6) Parties seeking to challenge a Determination on the basis that an adjudicator has read a previous Determination should only do so where there are clear grounds for challenge, other than the mere fact of reading the Determination. Reading a previous Determination of itself is not a proper ground of appeal."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina (Puspalatha) -v- The Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 333
2001


Immigration

1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte X Times, 09 January 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 740
9 Jan 2001
CA
Schiemann LJ
Immigration, Health, Human Rights
An asylum seeker had come to be detained under the Mental Health Act. The Home Secretary, having refused the asylum application, ordered him to be repatriated. Held: Though the Secretary of State could only exercise his powers of removal under section 86 of the MHA if it appeared to him to be in the patient's interests and with the approval of the MHT, the use of his powers under the 1971 Act were not expressly circumscribed in relation to persons detained under the MHA. Though this might lead to greater harm for the applicant, it was not a breach of his Article 3 rights. The two schemes could run side by side, and the Home Secretary appeared properly to have considered the applicant's mental condition.
Schiemann LJ said that the 1971 Act and the MHA deal with different categories of persons: the mentally ill and immigrants: "Parliament when enacting the Immigration Act 1971 had section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959, the predecessor of section 86 of the 1983 Act, in mind: see section 30 of the 1971 Act which extended existing statutory powers for the removal of aliens receiving in-patient treatment for mental illness to all persons subject to immigration control.
Similarly Parliament when enacting the Mental Health Act 1983 had the Immigration Act 1971 in mind. Section 86(1) of the 1983 Act specifically refers to it and paragraph 30 of Schedule 4 and Schedule 6 to the 1983 Act expressly amended section 30 of the 1971 Act to which we have just referred.
The interaction of these two Acts is something to which Parliament has adverted its attention yet what Parliament clearly did not do expressly was to circumscribe the Home Secretary in the use of his Immigration Act powers in the case of Mental Health Act patients.
Parliament could have made special provision for those who fell into both categories, perhaps by providing a special regime for them, perhaps by providing that the Immigration Act regime was to prevail and be the only one, perhaps by providing that the Mental Health Act regime should be the only one. It did not do so. It left in existence two sets of powers either of which could be used subject to the conditions prescribed for the use of that power.
. . There appears to us no reason why the two regimes should not run in parallel in the case of a person who is both an immigrant and mentally ill. Clearly if the Home Secretary proposes to use his Immigration Act powers in relation to a mentally ill person that illness will be a factor which he must take into account. It is not suggested in the instant case that he has failed to do so."
Immigration Act 1971 - Mental Health Act 1983
1 Citers



 
 Serunkuma -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; CA 12-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 41
 
Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the Application of Paramsothy Sivakumar [2001] EWHC Admin 109
22 Jan 2001
Admn
Cresswell J
Immigration
The applicant sought a judicial review of a refusal by the IAT of leave to appeal a refusal of asylum. He was a Tamil. He had been coerced into assisting the Tamil Tigers. The Special Adjudicator had considered only one possible convention reason, that of political opinion, omitting reference to race, and social group. He had been detained and tortured because his race made him liable to suspicion. This Court will quash an IAT refusal of leave to appeal when the Tribunal not acted rationally and 'in a consistent and transparent way, giving clear reasons' The appeal was dismissed, since the decision of the IAT was within the range of proper decisions it could make.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Rabia Begum, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 60
24 Jan 2001
CA
Buxton LJ
Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Farooq, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 100
26 Jan 2001
CA

Immigration
Application for permission to appeal from a refusal to grant permission to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to deport him as an overstayer.
[ Bailii ]
 
Azkhosravi, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 133
31 Jan 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Linda Boafo) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 18 March 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 782
6 Feb 2001
Admn
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Robert Walker
Immigration
The applicant had appealed a refusal to grant her permanent residence. The adjudicator granted her appeal, but the Home Secretary had declined on the bass that the adjudicator's decision had not been accompanied by directions. Held: The decision was binding on the Secretary of State. Whilst there are some circumstances which might allow a re-opening of a decision, the absence of direction was not one.
Immigration Act 1971 19(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Bensaid -v- The United Kingdom 44599/98; (2001) 33 EHRR 205; (2001) 33 EHRR 10; [2001] ECHR 82; [2001] INLR 325; 11 BHRC 297
6 Feb 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Health, Immigration
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed that his article 3 and 8 rights would be infringed if he were removed to Algeria. His claim focused both on the medical treatment in the UK of which he would be deprived and the lack of such treatment in Algeria. Held: His case under article 3 was not made out: the risk that the applicant would suffer a deterioration in his condition if he were returned to Algeria was "speculative". "Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition . . Mental health must also be regarded as a crucial part of private life associated with the aspect of moral integrity. Article 8 protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world. The preservation of mental stability is in that context an indispensable precondition to effective enjoyment of the right to respect for private life."
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred R -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sri Lanka) [2001] UKIAT 01TH0244
8 Feb 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Rajan (Related Claimants: Kimbesa Explained) Sri Lanka [2001] UKIAT 00008
8 Feb 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Javed, Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Zulfiqar Ali; Regina -v- Same ex parte Abid Ali Times, 09 February 2001
9 Feb 2001
QBD

Immigration, Human Rights
The Home Secretary had designated Pakistan as a safe country for the return of asylum applicants. The applicants sought to review this decision. The Secretary submitted that the court was not competent to challenge his assessment since it had been approved by Parliament, unless it could be shown that he had acted in bad faith. Held: The Human Rights Act now places the Courts under a positive duty to give effect to the Convention, and one requirement in particular was a prohibition of torture and in human and degrading treatment. An effective remedy has to be provided to avoid breaches of this right. The court having given detailed consideration to the relevant material, it was clear that the decision to include Pakistan in the list of designated countries could only have been reached on an erroneous view of the facts, of the law or of both. The decision was plainly wrong. The schedule was provided in order to enable unsuccessful claims to be summarily and expeditiously disposed of where there was no risk to the life of person of the asylum seekers. There was in the clearest evidence that the applicants had been tortured in the past and he returned to Pakistan would be likely again to be the subject of torture. Other applicants would be subject to persecution. The declaration was granted.

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Holub and Another Times, 13 February 2001
13 Feb 2001
CA

Immigration, Human Rights, Education
The right to education of a child under Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, was not breached by an order enforcing immigration control with the effect of taking away from a good school a child who had become settled there. The Convention gave no right to an education in any particular country, and it would be invidious to try to compare different education systems. Non-absolute human rights are not engaged when a country deals with such issues as immigration control. Having taken account of the child's education in making his decision, that decision could not be faulted for this reason.
European Convention on Human Rights


 
 Sajfudinov -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 249
 
Regina -v- Secretary Of State For The Home Department Ex Parte Alfonso Fula [2001] EWCA Civ 130
19 Feb 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Isiko and Another Times, 20 February 2001
20 Feb 2001
CA

Immigration, Human Rights, Family
It was not an infringement of the human rights of a family to deport a husband who had no permission to reside in the UK, even though the deportee's wife had a child by an earlier relationship who could not be separated from her former husband. Difficult choices needed to be made between the need to protect family life and the need for society to have immigration control. If a fundamental right such as the right to family life was involved, the court should expect of decision makers that they took those duties seriously, but even so, should defer to the considered policies made by a democratically elected parliament.
Human Rights Act 1998

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte X Gazette, 22 February 2001
22 Feb 2001
CA

Immigration, Health, Human Rights
The applicant had entered the UK without leave, and then been detained for mental illness. The Secretary ordered him to be removed. He claimed that there was no power to remove him whilst the detention order was current, and that the order infringed his human rights. Held: The later Act had not revoked the earlier, and the Secretary could act under either and without infringing his human rights, and he had no duty to give exceptional leave to remain.
Immigration Act 1971 2(1), 30 - Mental Health Act 1983 86 - Human Rights Act 1998 3

 
Starred G -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lebanon) [2001] UKIAT 01TH00096
23 Feb 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Gremesty (Abandonment of Appeal, Non-Compliance With Directions) Lebanon [2001] UKIAT 00011
23 Feb 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Westminster City Council -v- National Asylum Support Service [2001] EWHC Admin 138
27 Feb 2001
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Benefits, Immigration, Local Government

National Assistance Act 1948 21
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Senkoy [2001] EWCA Civ 328; [2001] IAR 399
2 Mar 2001
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Immigration
There does not have to be a change in the nature of the persecution to be feared for a new claim to asylum. Held: "When clear and cogent evidence of the same fear of the same persecution for the same Convention reason, let us say of the possibility of the execution of an applicant on return, becomes available which was not previously not available, can it really be right to treat that as not amounting to a new claim for asylum?"
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ahmed -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 306
8 Mar 2001
CA

immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Kaur (Justice, Intervener) Case C-192/99 Times, 08 March 2001
8 Mar 2001
ECJ

Immigration, European, International
The applicant had a British Passport, but had a British overseas citizen without a right of residence. Temporary leave to stay was renewed but eventually terminated. She claimed to be a citizen and therefore under European law entitled to freedom of movement within the EU. When the UK became a member of the EU it declared how it wished nationality to be defined. This was renewed and altered with the new Immigration Act. Customary international law allowed states to have different classes of citizenship with different rights, and her rights were determined by reference to the 1982 declaration.
British Nationality Act 1981 - ECTreaty Art 17 and 18

 
Alfonso, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 371
9 Mar 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
OP & others (Roma Ethnicity) Czech Republic Cg [2001] UKIAT 00001
9 Mar 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (On the Application of Bajram Zeqiri) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department Times, 16 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 342; [2002] Imm AR 296
12 Mar 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR
Immigration, Administrative
The applicant's case had been delayed to allow a test case as to whether Germany was to be treated as a safe country for the return of asylum seekers. Before the test case appeal was abandoned, circumstances changed so as to allow certification of Germany. The Home Secretary therefore abandoned the appeal and ordered the return of the applicants to Germany. The applicant challenged the decision saying that the delay of cases to allow the test case to proceed created a legitimate expectation which was not respected by the review. Held: "… First and foremost, I agree with the conclusions of Collins J in Artan Gjoka and Shefki Gashi. The provisions as to time in the Dublin Convention are designed to govern the relationship between the parties to it, not to confer rights on applicants for asylum. In the second case, the Dublin Convention does not form part of our domestic law and cannot govern the manner in which the 1996 Act operates" The Secretary's decision was unlawful.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Secretary of -v- D (Turkey) [2001] UKIAT 01TH00075
14 Mar 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Veysi Dag (VD) (Nationality, Country of Habitual Residence, Trnc) Cyprus Cg [2001] UKIAT 00002
14 Mar 2001
IAT

Immigration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kesse -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 21 March 2001
21 Mar 2001
CA

Administrative, Immigration
The immigration appeal tribunal has the power to order the attendance of witnesses before it even against the wishes of the parties to the hearing. The tribunal sought evidence from a lady whose marriage to the applicant was said to be the basis of the fraudulent obtaining of leave to remain in the UK. As an appellate tribunal, the IAT had power under the rules.
Immigration (Procedure) Rules 1984 (1984 No 2041) 27(1)

 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Balbo B and C Auto Transporti Internazionali Gazette, 11 May 2001; Times, 22 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 195
22 Mar 2001
Admn

Judicial Review, Immigration, Transport
Where a notice of liability was served on a transport operator with regard to his responsibility for transporting illegal immigrants into the country, and he wished to challenge it, the proper approach was to allow the notice to expire, and then to defend any proceedings brought. Given that way of dealing with it, it was not appropriate to challenge the notice itself by way of judicial review. The form of notice issued after review did not refer to the Secretary of State's need to pursue his remedy through the courts. This was unfortunate, but if it were true, it would make him judge and jury in his own cause.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 34
[ Bailii ]
 
Sayania -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Same -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 390
5 Apr 2001
Admn

Immigration, Human Rights
The claimant sought to quash the IAT refusal of leave to appeal a Special Adjudicator's decision, which had found no exceptional compassionate circumstances. She was a British Overseas Citizen seeking to be united with her family. She asserted that the test applied was too stringent in the light of the Human Rights Act. Held: The cases indicated no inconsistency between the policies applied and the applicant's article 8 rights.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Lb (Sufficiency of Protection, Communism) Lithuania Cg [2001] UKIAT 00005
9 Apr 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 261
9 Apr 2001
Admn

Immigration
The application raised two issues: the Tribunal's power to remit a case for rehearing by an adjudicator, and when an order made by a lone chairman of the Tribunal may be varied or set aside. The Tribunal only has the powers it is given. The two powers of remittal are not to be treated differently, and there is no remittal power involving a Tribunal delegating to the adjudicator its function of deciding the appeal from the adjudicator. Remittal is never a final determination under s 9 of the 1993 Act
Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 17(2) - Immigration Act 1971 19, 20, 22 - Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 - Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Zardari -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 275
9 Apr 2001
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Westminster City Council -v- National Asylum Support Service [2001] EWCA Civ 512; (2001) 33 HLR 83; (2001) 4 CCL Rep 143
10 Apr 2001
CA

Immigration, Benefits, Local Government, Human Rights

National Assistance Act 1948 21
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Z -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Latvia) [2001] UKIAT 01TH0631
11 Apr 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Lamonovs and Another -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 581
20 Apr 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred C -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Malaysia) [2001] UKIAT 01TH0100
24 Apr 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Chang (Eea Nationals, Spouses) Malaysia [2001] UKIAT 00012
24 Apr 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Haile -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 663
3 May 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Zenovics (Right of Appeal, Certification) Latvia [2001] UKIAT 00013
5 May 2001
IAT

Immigration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mafuta, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 745
9 May 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for The Home Department -v- Azad Ullah Times, 27 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 659
10 May 2001
CA

Immigration
The applicant was a British citizen by descent. He sought to be naturalised to acquire the additional rights that would bring. The Act created one unitary status of citizen, but allowed for different categories. The Act did not provide any mechanism whereby a citizen by one category, that of descent could become a citizen by naturalisation. If this caused some injustice this might be a source of proper debate, but was a matter for parliament. The Act expressly recognised the difference in effect between the born abroad of a British citizen by descent and otherwise. The distinction was not to be set aside by this method.
British Nationality Act 1981 42(5) 3 4
[ Bailii ]
 
Yasin Sepet and Erdem Bulbul -v- Secretary of State for Home Department (UNCHR Intervening) Times, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 681
11 May 2001
CA

Immigration
The fear of being punished for refusing to be drafted into a country's defence forces, where the claimant would be a conscientious objector, and the right to such objections would not be recognised, was not sufficient to justify an application for asylum. It was an internationally recognised preference that such objections to military service should be allowed, but that preference had not reached the point of becoming a legal requirement, and no right not to be drafted had been established..
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Judes, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 825
14 May 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Gavira) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 15 May 2001
15 May 2001
QBD

Immigration, Judicial Review
The procedure whereby the Secretary of State could certify that an asylum seeker's claim did not disclose a valid ground, did not allow the Secretary to issue a certificate which depended upon a denial of the truth of the applicant's claim. Where the claim asserted that the asylum-seeker had a fear of prosecution based upon facts which, if true, would bring her claim within the United Nations Convention, was a claim showing a fear of prosecution. The use of the procedure relying upon the disbelief of the applicant was quite unreasonable.

 
Starred Sj (Removal Directions) Iran [2001] UKIAT 00014
16 May 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Abdulla, Application for Judicial Review [2001] EWCA Civ 1081
16 May 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Kwan, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 722
16 May 2001
CA

Immigration
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of judicial review of removal directions.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali; CA 17-May-2001 - [2001] Imm AR 529; [2002] QB 129; [2001] INLR 645; [2001] 3 WLR 323; [2001] EWCA Civ 789
 
Sedrati and Others, Regina (On the Application of) -v- Secretary Of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 418
17 May 2001
Admn
Moses J
Immigration, Prisons
The court was asked to consider a policy on the detention on release from prison of foreign national prisoners pending their anticipated deportation. Moses J granted a declaration that the terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the 1971 Act do "not create a presumption in favour of detention upon completion of the sentence".
Immigration Act 1971
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wan -v- Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs; 18-May-2001 - [2001] FCA 568
 
Starred Entry Clearance Officer, Harare -v- H (Zimbabwe) [2001] UKIAT 01TH1147
22 May 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Hughes (Leave To Appeal, Time Limits) Zimbabwe [2001] UKIAT 00015
22 May 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for Home Department -v- Glowacki [2001] EWCA Civ 917
22 May 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Nazim Sattat (O/W Known As Mohammed Nazimudden) (Ap) for Judicial Review of Decisions of A Special Adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
24 May 2001
SCS
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon
Scotland, Immigration

[ ScotC ]

 
 Regina (Javed) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another etc; CA 24-May-2001 - Times, 24 May 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2002] QB 129
 
Canaj -v- Secretary of State for Home Department and Vallaj -v- A Special Adjudicator [2001] EWCA Civ 782; [2001] INLR 342
24 May 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore
Immigration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nazim Sattat (O/W Known As Mohammed Nazimudden) (Ap) for Judicial Review of Decisions of a Special Adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] ScotCS 122
24 May 2001
SCS

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Banomova -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; CA 25-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 807

 
 Regina on the Application of Santia Yogathas -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; Admn 25-May-2001 - Times, 25 July 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 377
 
Davila-Puga, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 931
25 May 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Gurjit Singh for Judicial Review of A Determination of A Special Adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] ScotCS 133
30 May 2001
OHCS
Lady Paton
Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Nhundu & Chiwera -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Zimbabwe) [2001] UKIAT 00613
1 Jun 2001
IAT
Ockleton DP
Immigration
IAT "This case is one of the first to raise issues under section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It requires the Tribunal to examine in particular certain aspects of the protection afforded by article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights to the right to respect for private and family life in the context of a decision proposing removal of two appellants to Zimbabwe."
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal Times, 12 June 2001
12 Jun 2001
QBD

Immigration


 
Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal Times, 12 June 2001
12 Jun 2001
QBD

Immigration
Where the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dealt with an appeal by remitting the case back to a special adjudicator for a rehearing, it had concluded the appeal, and it did not thereby delegate to the adjudicator its own function of deciding the appeal. There was no distinction to be made between procedural and substantive remittals. Remittal always involved disposing of the appeal to the IAT. Such a remittal was not a final determination of the appeal under section 9. The full Tribunal could not set aside an interlocutory decision of the chairman. That function was for the IAT.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Sch 4 - Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 (SI 2000 no 2333) 23

 
Frantisek -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 12 June 2001
12 Jun 2001
CA

Immigration
The applicant for asylum claimed that he had been persecuted by means of a violent and severe attack on his pregnant wife. He appealed against the refusal of asylum, and the court held that severe acts of violence against the wife or other close family member of an applicant was capable of being serious ill-treatment sufficient to found a claim of persecution.

 
Tom Omoghegbe Ikimi -v- Teresa Omawumi Ikimi Times, 18 July 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 873; [2002] Fam 72
13 Jun 2001
CA

Family, Immigration
A petitioner could issue a petition for divorce on the basis of being habitually resident in the UK, even though she would also have habitual residence elsewhere. In this case she had been in England for 161 days out of the year in question. Nevertheless, ordinary residence meant habitual and normal residence adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes apart from temporary absences. That interpretation was appropriate to be applied to the terms 'ordinarily' and 'habitually' resident, and that meaning should be adopted consistently in the interpretation of family law statutes.
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 5(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Azkhosravi, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 977
14 Jun 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Murat Kaya -v- Haringey London Borough Council and Another Times, 14 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2002] 34 HLR 1; [2001] EWCA Civ 677; [2001] EWCA Civ 677
14 Jun 2001
CA

Immigration, Housing, Benefits
The grant of temporary admission to the UK pending an decision on his asylum status, did not create a full 'lawful presence' in the UK. A person seeking to qualify for housing assistance had to be lawfully present within the UK, and temporary admission did not create a sufficient status by virtue of section 11.
Housing Act 1996 185(2) - Homelessness (England) Regulations 2000 (2000 No 701) 3(1)(e)(1) - Immigration Act 1971 11(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application Of: Sukhvinder Singh; Sukraj Singh and Sandip Kaur -v- the Secretary of State for the Home Office [2001] EWHC Admin 475
21 Jun 2001
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Todorovici, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 1064
27 Jun 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Sarkisian) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ([2002] INLR 80); [2001] EWHC Admin 486
28 Jun 2001
Admn

Immigration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Queen on the Application of Adeniyi Momudu Allison -v- the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 506
4 Jul 2001
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 SS -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lithuania); IAT 6-Jul-2001 - [2001] UKIAT 01TH01101
 
Harakal -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Gazette, 12 July 2001
12 Jul 2001
CA

Immigration
The applicant sought asylum being a Czech national. As a Roma, he had been subject to racist attacks by skinheads. He did not report these attacks to the police believing that they were infiltrated by the same gangs. The secretary refused his application, but the special adjudicator accepted that their was sufficient evidence of persecution. On appeal the Secretary of State succeeded, arguing that his evidence was subject to criticism. The applicant again appealed. The court had not allowed for the fact that the secretary had not challenged the finding on the evidence, and the decision of the adjudicator stood.

 
S (Sufficiency of Protection, Ethnic Russian) Latvia [2001] UKIAT 00019
16 Jul 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Samaroo and Sezek -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 17-Jul-2001 - Times, 20 June 2001; Gazette, 09 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 795; [2001] EWCA Civ 1139; [2002] 1 WLR 348; [2001] UKHRR 1150; [2002] INLR 55
 
Hussein-Deen -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 1202
17 Jul 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Kacaj (Article 3, Standard of Proof, Non-State Actors) Albania [2001] UKIAT 00018
19 Jul 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- K (Albania) [2001] UKIAT 01TH0634
19 Jul 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Sivakumar -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Gazette, 13 September 2001; Times, 07 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1196; [2002] INLR 310
24 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Wright
Immigration
The applicant for asylum was a Tamil. He was persecuted. He claimed it was political. The possibility of drawing that inference was greater when legal mis-treatment was not expected to be followed by legal proceedings. Excessive or arbitrary punishment for political offences did not necessarily amount to persecution for a Convention reason, but it did raise a strong inference of persecution. A person to whom a political opinion was imputed or who was of a race or social group subject to sanctions that did not apply generally in a state, was more likely than not to have been the subject of discrimination and persecution.
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kozlowski, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal; CA 26-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1327
 
Regina (Ivanauskiene) -v- A Special Adjudicator Times, 18 September 2001; Gazette, 20 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1271
31 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Rix
Immigration
The applicant had sought asylum. Her case had been refused, according to the law as stated at that time, but the decision then binding on the adjudicator (Shah), had been reversed in the House of Lords. It had now been held that the women of a country could be seen, at law, as a persecuted group. She now appealed again, and the decision was set aside.
Geneva Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951 Cmd 9197) and (1967 Cmnd 3906) article 1(A)(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jasvir Singh -v- The Final Determination By the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] ScotHC 73
1 Aug 2001
ScHC

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Choudhrey -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 613
1 Aug 2001
Admn
Mr Justice Munby
Immigration
The applicant sought to review refusal of his request to appeal in turn the refusal of his request for asylum as an Ahmadi from Pakistan. He had twice been assaulted by a non-government racist group. There was legislation having the effect of discriminating against members of the applicant's religion, but the adjudicator found no government persecution. She also found that he had been able to live in peace with his brother elsewhere. The treatment was found not been sufficient to constitute a well-founded fear of persecution. The Adjudicator had set the standard for persecution too high. It was not capable of definition, but need not be fear for his life as implied. This was a sufficient misdirection in law to require the decision to be quashed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jasvir Singh -v- The Final Determination by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] ScotCS 195
1 Aug 2001
SCS

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Jasvir Singh -v- The Final Determination By the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
1 Aug 2001
SCS
Lord Nimmo Smith
Scotland, Immigration

[ ScotC ]
 
Boultif -v- Switzerland 54273/00; (2000) 22 EHRR 50; [2001] ECHR 497
2 Aug 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Immigration
The applicant complained under Article 8 that the Swiss authorities had not renewed his residence permit, after which he had been separated from his wife, a Swiss citizen and who could not be expected to follow him to Algeria. Switzerland argued that his conviction for an offence of violence was sufficient justification for interfering with his rights. Held: The Convention does not guarantee any right to inhabit a country. The refusal was in accordance with law, but the question was whether the interference in this manner was necessary in a democratic society. Although he had been convicted of a serious crime, the evidence was of rehabilitation. The interference in this case was not proportionate.
As to the suggested article 8 interference: "The Court has only to a limited extent decided cases where the main obstacle to expulsion is the difficulties for the spouses to stay together and in particular for a spouse and/or children to live in the other's country of origin. It is therefore called upon to establish guiding principles in order to examine whether the measure was necessary in a democratic society.
In assessing the relevant criteria in such a case, the Court will consider the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant; the length of the applicant's stay in the country from which he is going to be expelled; the time elapsed since the offence was committed as well as the applicant's conduct in that period; the nationalities of the various persons concerned; the applicant's family situation, such as the length of the marriage; and other factors expressing the effectiveness of a couple's family life; whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship; and whether there are children in the marriage, and if so, their age. Not least, the Court will also consider the seriousness of the difficulties which the spouse is likely to encounter in the country of origin, though the mere fact that a person might face certain difficulties in accompanying her or his spouse cannot in itself exclude an expulsion."
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
AB SR (Kla Deserters) Kosovo [2001] UKIAT 00003
3 Aug 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (James Yankey) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 627
7 Aug 2001
Admn

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

[ Bailii ]
 
Tekere (Student) Zimbabwe [2001] UKIAT 01TH00174
9 Aug 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Yaser Mahmood) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; Admn 9-Aug-2001 - [2001] 1 WLR 840; [2001] EWHC Admin 632; [2001] INLR 1
 
Regina (Gashi) -v- Chief Immigration Adjudicator Gazette, 11 October 2001; Times, 12 November 2001; Gazette, 15 November 2001
17 Aug 2001
QBD
Judge Wilkie
Immigration
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the chief adjudicator refusing an appeal from a decision of the special adjudicator rejecting his asylum claim. His evidence had been rejected as inconsistent, but he claimed that this was due to an incompetent interpreter. The chief adjudicator had held that the competence of the interpreter was a matter of substance not a procedural error. The court granted the review. The competence of the interpreter was a matter of procedure, and was admissible under rule 16. Remitted to the chief adjudicator for reconsideration.
Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 (2000 No 2333) 16
1 Citers


 
Bk -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yugoslavia) [2002] UKIAT 01TH02140
30 Aug 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of Baram etc) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department
7 Sep 2001
Admn

Immigration, Human Rights
Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not depend upon whether the detainee might abscond. It appeared that the system worked for the administrative convenience of making speedy decisions, and not because he has done anything which might usually be considered as a justification for depriving him of his liberty. None of the detainees had been told why they were being held, and misleading reasons for detention were recorded. The detention required justification under article 5 of the Convention. It would be artificial to suggest that detention was for the purposes of art 5(1)(f), and the detention was unlawful. To be lawful, detention must be justified for each individual under Article 5.1(f).
Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Yogathas) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1611
9 Sep 2001
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Anthony Evans
Immigration, Human Rights
When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the decision and the test laid down, namely whether that third country might itself deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the Convention.
Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2 - Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Allan Samaroo -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 18 September 2001
18 Sep 2001
CA

Immigration, Human Rights
A civil court of appeal has power to hear an application for bail in the course of a judicial review of a committal to custody under the Act pending deportation. Though the applicant could have sought habeas corpus, the court could exercise a similar powers by way of an original jurisdiction. The power to commit a deportee to custody was within the statutory power of the Secretary of State. The power was an inherent one, but was now to be seen in the light of the Human Rights Act. Nevertheless the court should attach particular weight to the views of the Secretary of State. In this case his decision was not to be disturbed.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Farrakhan -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 1-Oct-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 781
 
Regina (on the Application of Hamid Ali Husain) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 15 November 2001; 2001] EWHC Admin 852; CO/105/2001
5 Oct 2001
QBD
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Immigration, Human Rights, Benefits
New regulations created a system under which applicants for asylum could be deprived of all benefits on the decision of an asylum support adjudicator. That person was appointed by the Home Secretary, and it was alleged was not impartial. It was argued that the system was dispensing discretionary benefits, and not rights, and that a withdrawal of those benefits was not an interference with rights. Making the benefit discretionary was deliberate, but involved a degree of unreality. The applicant had a right to have his appeal heard by someone independent of the Secretary of State. The tribunals were established by law as required. Whilst it would be preferable fro a different department to be responsible for the appointments, the system retained sufficient impartiality. Courts should lean against accepting judicial review as a substitute for the independence of tribunals. In this case the asylum seeker had had his support withdrawn after an allegation of assault. However under the licence agreement that support was to be withdrawn only in case of misuse of the premises. One such an assault was not capable of being misuse.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 - Asylum Support Regulations 2000
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Rehman; HL 11-Oct-2001 - Times, 15 October 2001; Gazette, 01 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 47; [2003] 1 AC 153; 11 BHRC 413; [2002] ACD 6; [2001] 3 WLR 877; [2002] Imm AR 98; [2002] INLR 92; [2002] 1 All ER 122
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed Times, 22 October 2001; Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1512; [2002] 1 WLR 356
19 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Waller
Immigration, Human Rights
The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals. Held: The Act authorised detention up to the point where a decision was made. The Act empowered detention not for the purpose of examination or for the purpose of deciding whether to give or refuse leave to enter, but pending those events. It was simply to prevent a person entering without leave. The court doubted that detention was necessary to ensure effective and speedy processing of asylum applications, but that was speculation. It was impossible to condemn as irrational the subjection of those asylum seekers whose applications might be rapidly resolved to short-term of detention to ensure that the regime operated without dislocation. Article 5.1(f) recognised the state's right to prevent unauthorised admission by detaining the person seeking to enter.
Lord Phillips MR said that lawful exercise of statutory powers can be restricted, according to established principles of public law, by government policy and the legitimate expectation to which such policy gives rise.
Immigration Act 1971
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Anufrijeva) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 895
25 Oct 2001
Admn
Sir Christopher Bellamy QC
Immigration, Benefits

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gashi -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1747
5 Nov 2001
CA

Immigration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Moro -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1680
7 Nov 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Olatin Archer for Judicial Review of A Determination of A Special Adjudicator [2001] ScotCS 258
9 Nov 2001
SCS

Scotland, Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Olatin Archer for Judicial Review of A Determination of A Special Adjudicator
9 Nov 2001
SCS
Lady Paton
Scotland, Immigration

[ ScotC ]
 
Khalid Anaid Inayat for Judicial Review of Decisions of A Special Adjudiciator and Immigration Appeal Tribunal
13 Nov 2001
SCS
Lord Philip
Scotland, Immigration

[ ScotC ]
 
Singh -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 925
14 Nov 2001
Admn

Immigration
Mistreatment was found to be only localised in India, allowing an asylum seeker to be returned.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Zenovics -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1736
14 Nov 2001
CA

Immigration

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Gardi (Asylum, Kaa, Internal Flight Alternative) Iraq [2001] UKIAT 00017
16 Nov 2001
IAT

Immigration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- G (Iraq) [2001] UKIAT 01TH2997
16 Nov 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Khanam and others -v- Entry Clearance Officer [2001] EWCA Civ 1857
27 Nov 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
ex parte Dirisu -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 970
30 Nov 2001
Admn

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
JS (Homosexual, Behaviour, Prosecution) Kenya Cg [2001] UKIAT 00007
3 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Mf Jf (Sufficiency of Protection, Anti-Semitic Acts, Anti-Russian Acts) Lithuania Cg [2001] UKIAT 00004
3 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Maqsood -v- The Special Adjudicator, The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 1003
3 Dec 2001
Admn
Justice Stanley Burnton
Immigration
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to proceed with his appeal in his absence. He, his advisers and his witness had gone to the wrong court. The court had changed the venue from previous hearings, but the notice of hearing had not been received. The decision was promulgated before the circumstances had been made clear. Held: The officer was functus officio, and had been unable to re-open his decision. An immigrant deprived of the opportunity to present his case as a result of the negligence of his solicitors had no ground for complaint in law.
Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 International Transport Roth GmbH and Others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 5-Dec-2001 - Times, 11 December 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002
 
Kanagasingham Kariharan, Kanagaratnam Koneswaran, and Mahendran Pabeendran -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 1004
5 Dec 2001
Admn
Justice Stanley Burnton
Immigration, Human Rights
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.
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)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Romo -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 2109
11 Dec 2001
CA

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Noruwa ( Proportionality Appeal: Assessment, Not Discretion) Nigeria [2001] UKIAT 00016
11 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Savas, Regina (on the Application of) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 1062
11 Dec 2001
Admn

Immigration, Human Rights

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred S -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Algeria) [2001] UKIAT 01TH00092
12 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Slimani (Content of Adjudicator Determination) Algeria [2001] UKIAT 00009; [2001] UKIAT 01TH00092
12 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Z -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00232
18 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Kinuthia -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 2100; [2002] INLR 133
18 Dec 2001
CA
Pill LJ,
Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Starred Kehinde (Appeal, Section 65 1999 Act, Rights of Others) Nigeria [2001] UKIAT 00010
19 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration
"In an appeal under section 65, therefore, there is no obligation to take into account claims made about the human rights of individuals other than the appellant or individuals who have not themselves been the subject of a decision which is under appeal. Such matters (save in so far as they relate to the human rights of the appellant himself) are irrelevant to the matter under consideration.
. . [A]nybody else who claims that, in making or proposing to carry out the decision a public authority will breach his or her human rights, may bring proceedings under section 7(1)(a) of the 1998 Act."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina on the Application of Hwez -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department & an Adjudicator Times, 07 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 1067
19 Dec 2001
Admn
Lord Phillips Master Of The Rolls, Lord Justice Schiemann, And, Lord Justice Clarke
Immigration
The Home Secretary's statement that he had no intention to seek the removal from this country of an asylum seeker did not operate to remove his right to persist with an appeal against refusal of refugee status. In the light of the Sad case, the appeal must be allowed to go ahead. The asylum claimant was entitled to have the question whether he was a refugee determined by the appellate authorities. In those circumstances, the argument in favour of adjourning the case indefinitely disappeared.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 69
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Morven Marcia McPherson -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1955
19 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Sedley and Lady Justice Arden
Immigration, Human Rights
The appellant had entered the UK as a visitor on regular occasions and latterly had used false passport. She was then convicted of supplying Class A drugs, and ordered to be deported. She had children who also were in the UK, and did not wish to be separated from them, and was afraid of violence against her if she was returned to Jamaica The adjudicator had failed to make a determination on her claim under article 8, and the IAT had declined to allow an appeal. Held: It was wrong not to hear the point. She had the right to make the claim, and had the right to have it determined. There was clear evidence that the state might be unable to protect her from an individual. There was a change in the law between the adjudicator's decision and the IAT decision whereby someone breaching an order under the Jamaican Domestic Violence Act might be imprisoned. A state could not be required to guarantee the safety of an individual, but some judgement had to be made. Appeal allowed.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Saad and Others) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 07 January 2002
19 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Schiemann and Lord Justice Clarke
Immigration
The grant by the Secretary of State of exceptional leave to remain in the UK, did not remove the right of an asylum seeker to appeal a rejection of his claim for asylum. The applicant had the right to have his status, and the UK's compliance with international obligation determined. Held: The granting of special leave was not full compliance by the UK with its treaty obligations. A grant of refugee status would confer significant additional rights.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 69
1 Cites


 
Starred K -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nigeria) [2001] UKIAT 01TH2668
19 Dec 2001
IAT

Immigration

[ Bailii ]
 
Spinnato, Re -v- Governor of HM Prison Brixton and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1124
20 Dec 2001
Admn
Lord Justice Kennedy And Mrs Justice Hallett
Immigration, Human Rights
The prisoner had been convicted in his absence in 1991 of offences in Italy. He was resident in England at the time, and many years later extradition was sought. He had not hidden his whereabouts, and the Italian State seemed not to have pursued him. He now said it would not be in the interests of justice for him to be called upon to serve the sentence, and that the trial in his absence infringed his human rights. Held: A trial in a defendants absence is not automatically unfair, particularly if he had opportunity to be heard. In this case he had been actively represented in his absence, and in England his trial would not be set aside. Would it be unjust or oppressive to order his return? Although the delay had been substantial, and he had acquired new obligations here, it was not wrong to order his return to serve the sentence.
European Convention on Human Rights - Extradition Act 1989 6(2) 11(3)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Ravideep Singh Bhoti [2001] EWCA Civ 2016; [2001] EWCA Civ 2016
20 Dec 2001
CA

Immigration

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