The applicant, a foreign national had been given temporary admission to the UK. He received income support. But this ceased after his asylum application was rejected, and he remained resident.
Held: The legislation now made specific reference to the concept of lawful presence, and required this before an entitlement to benefits arose. The case of Bugdaycay had set that concept out, and this had been confirmed in Kaya’s case, and now again by this court.
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill Mr Justice Maurice Kay Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1131, Times 22-Aug-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115(1) 115(3), Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000 (2000 No 636)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
Confirmed – Murat Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council and Another CA 14-Jun-2001
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 . .
Appeal from – Szoma v Southwark London Borough Council Admn 17-Feb-2003
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Immigration
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185241
