1. Paragraph A398 of the immigration rules governs each of the rules in Part 14 that follows it. The expression ‘foreign criminal’ in paragraph A398 is to be construed by reference to the definition of that expression in section 117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: OLO and Others (para 398 – ‘foreign … Continue reading SC (Paras A398 – 339D: ‘Foreign Criminal’: Procedure) Albania: UTIAC 27 Apr 2020
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return. Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant consideration, and the matter would have to be looked at again.Lord … Continue reading EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 25 Jun 2008
The claimant challenged fines imposed on him after three illegal immigrants were found to have hidden in his lorry in the immigration control zone at Dunkirk. The 1999 At was to have been amended by the 2002 Act, and the implementation was by the 2002 Order. That Order was now said to be ineffective. Held: … Continue reading Bogdanic v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 29 Aug 2014
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of Appeal upheld his claim saying that the use of a list not … Continue reading Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 18 Jul 2012
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription had been cancelled by the Tribunal. Lord Carlile appealed … Continue reading Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 12 Nov 2014
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004
The Court was asked what rules apply to family members seeking entry to the United Kingdom, where the sponsor was given asylum and then obtained British citizenship. The ECO had said that the ordinary family members rules applied, where the claimants said that the joint relative rules applied, under which they would not be required … Continue reading ZN (Afghanistan) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi): SC 12 May 2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of the shares, the figure was 20% and soon to be reduced to 15%. It said … Continue reading Bank Mellat v HM Treasury: QBD 11 Jun 2010
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both open and closed statements to the tribunal. The open statement accepted that the organisation was … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman: HL 11 Oct 2001
UTIAC In the context of a Post Study Work appeal based on the right to respect for private life, the balancing of all relevant factors of significance cannot be confined to consideration of the appellant’s ability to self-maintain and the potential to misunderstand requirements of the Immigration Rules and corresponding Policy Guidance.Sullivan J’s observations in … Continue reading BN (Article 8 Post Study Work) Kenya: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010
The SSHD appealed against an order finding that its officer had acted without power in cancelling a valid visitor’s visa once granted. The officer had decided that the visit was not for the purpose stated. Held: The appeal succeeded. The paragraph of the rules quoted by the officer did not apply. The appellant then wrote … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Boahen: CA 28 May 2010
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to prevent his seeing some the evidence on which the orders had been made. A … Continue reading Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: CA 12 Sep 2008
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and home. Held: Article 8 does not, in terms, give a right to … Continue reading London Borough of Harrow v Qazi: HL 31 Jul 2003
Several claimants challenged the withdrawal by the respondent of the seven year child concession policy, under which families who did not have leave to be in this country, but with children who had been in this country for 7 years were, save in exceptional circumstances, allowed to remain here. In each of these cases, it … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Rahman: CA 15 Jul 2011
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor. Held: The appeals succeeded.Lord Brown said: ‘The Rules are not to be construed with all the … Continue reading Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer: SC 16 Dec 2009
UTIAC 1. The question whether the appellant ‘is a persistent offender’ is a question of mixed fact and law and falls to be determined by the Tribunal as at the date of the hearing before it. 2. The phrase ‘persistent offender’ in s.117D(2)(c) of the 2002 Act must mean the same thing as ‘persistent offender’ … Continue reading Chege (‘Is A Persistent Offender’) Kenya: UTIAC 12 Apr 2016
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
georgia_russiaECHR1407 ECHR Grand Chamber – Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens Collective expulsion of Georgian nationals by Russian authorities from October 2006 to January 2007: administrative practice in breach Article 33 Inter-state case Collective expulsion of Georgian nationals by Russian authorities from October 2006 to January 2007 Article 35 … Continue reading Georgia v Russia (No 1): ECHR 3 Jul 2014
The claimant, a Chilean national, sought review of a decision not to allow him to stay in the UK as the husband of a British national. He said that the decision was based on him being under 21, and that this was discriminatory, and infringed his article 8 rights to respect for his private and … Continue reading Quila and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 7 Dec 2009
The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm. Held: The appeal failed. The critical issue was whether family life existed at the … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey): CA 27 May 2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for staying. Held: The appeals succeeded. By 1969, immigration rules had by law shed the … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina: CA 23 Jun 2010
UTIAC (i) Neither s.18, nor any other provision in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (‘the 2007 Act’), nor any provision in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 gives the Upper Tribunal a discretionary power to transfer to the High Court a case which has been begun in the Upper Tribunal. Where a … Continue reading B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Rule 33A Jr Amendments and Transfers) (IJR): UTIAC 15 Mar 2016
Wrongful Transmission of Distanced Hearing In a defamation case, the solicitors representing one party had live streamed a video of a defamation trial to several individuals outside the jurisdiction without the Court’s permission. The trial took place during the Coronavirus pandemic, and conducted at a distance. There had been discussions between the judge and solicitors … Continue reading Gubarev and Another v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd and Another: QBD 6 Aug 2020
The Court considered linked issues as to the treatment of ‘qualifying children’ and their parents, under the statutory regime contained in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Three appellants (KO, IT and NS) argued that when . .
UTIAC In considering the conjoined Article 8 ECHR claims of multiple family members decision-makers should first apply the Immigration Rules to each individual applicant and, if appropriate, then consider Article . .
Appeals by Iranian citizen against the decision by the respondent to refuse her a visit visa further to paragraph 41(i) and 41(ii) of the Immigration Rules. . .
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
The Entry Clearance Officer appealed against a determination of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal . The Respondent before the Upper Tribunal was the Appellant before the First-tier Tribunal. The claimant is a male citizen of Pakistan who applied for . .
Appeal of the Secretary of State against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Stokes who allowed the claimant’s appeal against the decision of the respondent to refuse him entry clearance to the United Kingdom as a family visitor pursuant . .
Aikens LJ said: ‘The court would not be entitled to strike down the rule unless satisfied that it was incapable of being operated in a proportionate way and so was inherently unjustified in all or nearly all cases.’ and ‘If the particular . .
The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided with evidence unseen . .
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
References: [1999] EWCA Civ 3010, [2000] 1 WLR 354, [1999] 3 All ER 231, [2000] Imm AR 10, [1999] INLR 241 Links: Bailii Coram: Lord Woolf MR Ratio:An appellant failed to use the prescribed form for his appeal, contrary to the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules. There had not been substantial compliance with the Rules, although … Continue reading Jeyeanthan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent: CA 21 May 1999
References: [2004] UKHL 27, [2004] 3 WLR 58, Times 21-Jun-04, [2004] 2 AC 369, [2004] 3 All ER 821, [2004] INLR 349 Links: House of Lords, Bailii Coram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc: HL 17 Jun 2004
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Please note (June 2010: that these law-bytes will soon (but not very soon and slowly) be re-organised, and re-posted within the main swarb.co.uk law-blog. This will allow much more powerful crosslinking for users between the various pages. All the existing pages will be left in place, but only the replacements will be updated. Eventually all … Continue reading law-bytes
Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index
