A person who obtained leave to enter, but did so by fraud, was an illegal entrant, on the basis that the fraud had the effect of vitiating the leave to enter which had been granted: ‘it is clear on general principles of law that deception may arise from conduct, or from conduct accompanied by silence as to material fact.’ The Divisional Court: ‘cannot possibly act as, in effect, a Court of Appeal as to the facts on which the Immigration Officer decided. What it is able to do, and this is the limit of its powers, is to see whether there was evidence on which the Immigration Officer, acting reasonably, could decide as he did.’ The Secretary of State’s decision to deport the applicant was reviewable under habeas corpus.
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Salmon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen
[1980] AC 930 HL, [1980] UKHL 14, [1980] 2 All ER 768, [1980] 3 WLR 249
Bailii
Immigration Act 1971
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir CA 21-Dec-1979
The claimant appealed refusal of his request for a writ of habeas corpus. He had been detained for return to Pakistand. He had obtained an entry certificate, but then married, but did not disclose that on entry.
Held: The failure amounted to a . .
At first Instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir QBD 14-Mar-1979
The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus having been detained pending his removal after failing to disclose his subsquent marriage on entry under an entry certificate.
Held: The request failed on the basis that entry had been obtained by a . .
Cited by:
Not followed – Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
Appeal from – Zamir v United Kingdom ECHR 1983
(Commission) Review of the lawfulness of a detention must be by a court, by a body which is judicial in character, and the review must be speedy. The right under Article 5.4 ‘must be seen as independent of the possibility of applying to a court for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.183159
