Tag: Immigration

Secretary of State for The Home Department v DD (Afghanistan): CA 10 Dec 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for asylum and protection on human rights grounds. He said that if returned to Afghanistan he would face a real risk of serious harm.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1407

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 54, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Nov-2012
The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427003

HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Oct 2010

Appeal against order for the deportation of the applicant to Iraq.

Judges:

Pill, Jackson, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1322

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426703

McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ECJ 25 Nov 2010

ECJ (European Citizenship) Citizenship of the Union – Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Dual nationality – Article 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Beneficiary – Legal residence – Family unification – Discrimination against one’s own nationals.

Citations:

C-434/09, [2010] EUECJ C-434/09, [2011] EUECJ C-434/09

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426675

Makhlouf v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Nov 2016

(Northern Ireland) The appellant (born in Tunisia) was made subject to a deportation order. He had married a UK citizen and they had a child. After moving to the UK, at various times, the relationship broke down and he was convicted of several offences. The most serious was for an assault with a weapon which he said had been on Loyalist paramilitaries and had been provoked by their racist remarks. He said that a deportation would infringe his Article 8 rights
Held: There was nothing which should have prompted them to make further enquiries as to the best interests of the children. There is nothing at all to suggest that the best interests of these children require that their father should remain in the United Kingdom. Of course there will be cases where fuller inquiries are warranted or where the best interests of children do outweigh the public interest in deportation or removal. This is emphatically not one of them.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Thomas

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 59, [2017] Imm AR 538, [2017] 3 All ER 1, [2017] INLR 222, UKSC 2015/0092

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summaryd

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – Makhlouf, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 26-Nov-2014
Appeal against deportation order. He court was asked: ‘(1) Did the Secretary of State err in deciding to deport the appellant under the mandatory power conferred by section 32 of the 2007 Act?
(2) Did the Upper Tribunal err in law in failing . .
Cited – Berrehab v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Jun-1988
Family life arises ipso jure as between father and child where the child was conceived in wedlock. Divorce and separation do not bring family life between the child and the absent parent to an end, even if the divorce leads to a significant period . .
Cited – Sylvester v Austria ECHR 24-Apr-2003
Effective respect for family life required that future family relations between parent and child are not determined by the passage of time alone . .
Cited – Singh v Entry Clearance Officer New Delhi CA 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, an 8 year old boy, became part of his Indian family who lived in England, through an adoption recognised in Indian Law, but not in English Law. Though the adoption was genuine, his family ties had not been broken in India. The family . .
Cited – Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland ECHR 6-Jul-2010
(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him . .
Cited – Re H-B (Contact) CA 22-Apr-2015
F’s appeal against orders made on his application for contact refusing him direct contact.
Sir James Munby P said: ‘. . parental responsibility is more, much more than a mere lawyer’s concept or a principle of law. It is a fundamentally . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – Ferrari v Romania ECHR 28-Apr-2015
. .
Cited – Re A (A Child) CA 6-Sep-2013
In the context of an intractable contact dispute, firmer case management may be required lest the family care system itself should contribute to the failure to develop a relationship with both parents, thereby violating the child’s article 8 rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.571292

Makhlouf, Re Application for Judicial Review: CANI 26 Nov 2014

Appeal against deportation order. He court was asked: ‘(1) Did the Secretary of State err in deciding to deport the appellant under the mandatory power conferred by section 32 of the 2007 Act?
(2) Did the Upper Tribunal err in law in failing to find that the Secretary of State and First-tier Tribunal had erred in law and in refusing to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal?
(3) Did the Upper Tribunal err contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act in failing to set aside the decision to deport in the absence of any tangible evidence for any article 8(2) justification of the encroachment of the article 8 rights of the appellant’s children in circumstances where the Tribunal had not been specifically asked to address this point by the parties?’
Held: The appeal failed.
On the first issue the Court of Appeal concluded that section 32 played no part in the Secretary of State’s decision. Had it done so, it would have been unnecessary to consider para 396 of the Immigration Rules and the decision letter had made it abundantly clear that this had been taken into account – para 35 of the court’s judgment. The first ground of appeal was therefore dismissed.
The factors amply supported the conclusion that the appellant’s deportation was conducive to the public good. As to the delay this could be important but not in this case.
The court rejected the suggestion that there should have been further investigation of the impact that the deportation of the appellant might have on the lives of his children, observing that ‘these children did not require the disruption of further investigation in circumstances where a court with appropriate jurisdiction had made important decisions in relation to their welfare’.

Judges:

Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ and Gillen LJ

Citations:

[2014] NICA 86

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007 32

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Makhlouf v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
(Northern Ireland) The appellant (born in Tunisia) was made subject to a deportation order. He had married a UK citizen and they had a child. After moving to the UK, at various times, the relationship broke down and he was convicted of several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.552629

HM and Others (Article 15(C)) Iraq CG: UTIAC 22 Sep 2010

UTIAC Rule 9(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, which provides for UNHCR participation in Upper Tribunal proceedings as an intervener in an ‘asylum case’, is to be construed purposively to include subsidiary (humanitarian) protection.
In deciding whether to accept an application by an appellant to withdraw an appeal in an asylum-related case which the parties have previously agreed was suitable for fresh Tribunal country guidance, particularly relevant will be the importance to the public interest of the Tribunal assisting immigration judges, primary decision-makers and litigants in giving such guidance wherever it is possible and reasonably practical to do so.
The Tribunal may decide that permission to adduce an expert report on a country guidance case shall be given on the basis that the report is disclosed to the Upper Tribunal irrespective of whether the commissioning party intends to call the witness.
Following Elgafaji, Case C-465/07, BAILII: [2009] EUECJ C-465/07 and QD (Iraq) [2009] EWCA Civ 620, in situations of armed conflict in which civilians are affected by the fighting, the approach to assessment of the level of risk of indiscriminate violence must be an inclusive one, subject only to the need for there to be a sufficient causal nexus between the violence and the conflict.
The degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the current armed conflict taking place in Iraq is not at such a high level that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that any civilian returned there, would, solely on account of his presence there face a real risk of being subject to that threat.
If the figures relating to indices such as the number of attacks or deaths affecting the civilian population in a region or city rise to unacceptably high levels, then, depending on the population involved, Article 15(c) might well be engaged, at least in respect of the issue of risk in that area, although it is emphasised that any assessment of real risk to the appellant should be one that is both quantitative and qualitative and takes into account a wide range of variables, not just numbers of deaths or attacks.
If there were certain areas where the violence in Iraq reached levels sufficient to engage Article 15(c) the Tribunal considers it is likely that internal relocation would achieve safety and would not be unduly harsh in all the circumstances.
The evidence relating to UK returns of failed asylum seekers to Iraq in June 2010 does not demonstrate that the returns process will involve serious harm. Further, it is significant that UKBA is already taking steps to improve procedures in the light of concerns expressed by UNHCR and others over the two charter flights in that month.
So far as concerns UK enforced returns to Iraq, the Tribunal is not satisfied that recent problems demonstrate that the process results in serious harm.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 331 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425490

OT (Ankara Agreement Students, Businessmen, Workers) Turkey: UTIAC 15 Sep 2010

HC 510 contains no provision entitling a person admitted as a student to remain (or seek leave to remain) as a businessman; R (Payir and others) v SSHD has no application to those who are, or claim to be, businessmen as distinct from ‘workers’.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 330 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425491

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bostanci: QBD 13 Apr 1999

A person being interviewed as part of an application for asylum has no right as such to have his own interpreter present, just as he has no right to a lawyer. However the refusal of consent to an interpreter must be exercised only for good reason.

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.87834

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Demiraj and Another: QBD 26 Mar 1998

Differences in implementation of Convention between different countries were permissible and didn’t make third country policies unacceptable.

Citations:

Times 26-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.87841

MXL, Regina (on The Application of) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 30 Sep 2010

The claimant sought judicial review and a declaration as to damages saying that her detention by immigration authorities had been unlawful.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2397 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424780

Abdi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2010

The respondent appealed against an order for the release of the claimant from administrative detention, saying that the court should have disregarded when calculating the length of the detention, and time spent awaiting the appeal.

Judges:

Pill, Rimer, Peter Smith LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424783

LP (St Lucia) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 30 Mar 2010

Secretary of State’s appeal, with permission against the determination of the tribunal by which they allowed the respondent’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to revoke the deportation order earlier made against him.

Judges:

Laws, Sedley, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 493

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416594

B v Germany: ECJ 1 Jun 2010

ECJ Minimum standards for conditions to be fulfilled by third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees – Reasons for exclusion from refugee status – Article 12, paragraph 2 b) of Directive 2004/83 / EC – applicant’s past participation in the activities of an organization registered in the list of persons, groups and entities to which Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

Citations:

C-57/09, [2010] EUECJ C-57/09 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – B v Germany ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection – Article 12 – Exclusion from refugee status – Article 12(2)(b) and (c) – Notion of ‘serious non-political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416444

FW (Paragraph 322: Untruthful Answer) Kenya: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

UTIAC When a direct question is asked, and answered untruthfully, there is both a false representation and a non-disclosure; and it is not open to an Appellant who gives an untruthful answer to a direct question in an application form to say that the matter was not material.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 165 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416345

MS (AS and NV Considered) Pakistan: UTIAC 23 Apr 2010

UTIAC The effect of AS and NV [2009] EWCA Civ 1076 is to make the Tribunal the primary decision maker in an increased number of cases where a new ground is raised for the first time, but it does not have the effect of requiring the Tribunal to consider as a section 120 statement a re-formulation of the original ground on which leave to remain was sought.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 117 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416341

MH (Respondent’s Bundle: Documents Not Provided) Pakistan: UTIAC 2 Jun 2010

UTIAC Rule 13 of the First Tier Tribunal Rules requires an unpublished document to be supplied to the Tribunal if it is mentioned in the Notice of, or Reasons for Refusal or if the Respondent relies on it. Because the Notice of, or Reasons for Refusal form the statement of the Respondent’s case, however, the Tribunal is likely to assume that a document mentioned in either, but not supplied to the Tribunal, is no longer relied on.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 168 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416347

HXA v The Home Office: QBD 21 May 2010

The claimant challenged as unlawful his administrative detention for 10 months pending deportation.

Judges:

King J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1177 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights 5, Immigration Act 1971 5(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
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 . .
See Also – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH Admn 9-May-2008
The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415983

MK (Iran), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 26 Nov 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – MK (Iran), Regina (on the Application Of) v the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and others CA 3-May-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – MK (Iran), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 25-Feb-2010
The appellant claimed damages arising from the delay in the processing his asylum application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408790

HH (Somalia) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 23 Apr 2010

There is no right of appeal against directions of a ‘technical’ nature in relation to the removal, such as the specifying of a particular ship or aircraft and other detailed ‘mechanics’ of return or ‘technical’ matters

Judges:

Sedley, Smith, Elias LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 426, [2010] WLR (D) 107

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – AM (Evidence – Route of Return) Somalia UTIAC 11-Feb-2011
UTIAC (i) In HH (Somalia) v Secretary of State [2010] EWCA Civ 426 at para 84 the Court of Appeal when referring to the Claimant raising a cogent argument that there might not be a safe route of return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408597

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v AJ (Angola): CA 17 Dec 2014

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1636

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.540226

MT, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon: CA 21 Jan 2010

Renewed application for permission to appeal against the refusal to grant permission to the applicant, MT, to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Judges:

Rimer LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Children, Immigration

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396705

Haedare, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 7 Dec 2009

The applicant, a national of Iran, challenged the decision of the Secretary of State to remove him to Greece under the Dublin Regulations. Issues arose as to whether the applicant left the EU for 3 months and whether Greece was a safe country to which to return the applicant.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC (Admin) 3444

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392655

Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Nov 2016

The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious relationship with an English woman since 2005. However the Home Secretary had applied the provisions for automatic deportation. This appeal now raise two issues relating to the deportation of ‘foreign criminals’ as defined in the 2007 Act. The first was the significance of sections 32 and 33 of that Act in appeals relating to deportation which are based on article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second concerned the significance, in the same context, of changes to the Immigration Rules which came into effect in July 2012.’
Held: (Lord Kerr dissenting) The appeal failed. The Upper Tribunal should have taken account of the Immigration Rules (though not bound by them) and of the fact that at the time he formed his relationship, the question of the persistence of his stay was already uncertain.
Lord Wilson added that public concern (as shown by the Rules endorsed by Parliament) can assist a court’s objective analysis of where the public interest lies.
Lord Thomas emphasises the importance of clear reasoning at first instance through a structured ‘balance sheet’ approach.
Lord Kerr would have allowed the appeal and the decision of the Upper Tribunal. The Immigration Rules, and their prescription of the weight to be given to the public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals, were not compatible with the balancing exercise that had to be undertaken in considering the relevant factors arising under article 8 in a particular case. It had been sufficient for the Upper Tribunal to take into account those relevant factors. Undue or unique reliance on the Rules, at the expense of a comprehensive survey of the pertinent article 8 factors was not appropriate

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Thomas

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 60, [2017] INLR 109, [2017] 3 All ER 20, [2016] WLR(D) 610, [2017] Imm AR 484, [2016] 1 WLR 4799, UKSC 2015/0126

Links:

Bailii, SC, SC Summary, WLRD, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 22-Jul-2014
HA, an Iraqi national arrived in the United Kingdom some time in 2000. He made an asylum claim in 2002 which was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. However, he remained in the United Kingdom without leave and was fined for possessing Class A and . .
Cited – SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 22-May-2013
Laws LJ’s observed that for a claim under article 8 of the ECHR to prevail, it must be ‘a very strong claim indeed’ . .
Cited – Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
Cited – British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade HL 15-Jul-1970
Cylinders containing hydrogen gas were being put on a trailer pulled by a tractor for the purpose of delivery to the premises of the purchaser. One of the issues before the court was whether the function of the hydrogen trailers and the cylinders . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Cited – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
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.
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Cited – Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as . .
Cited – Boultif v Switzerland ECHR 2-Aug-2001
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 . .
Cited – Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 1-Dec-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection dismissed (estoppel); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Uner v The Netherlands ECHR 18-Oct-2006
(Grand Chamber) The court considered the application of article 8 considerations in extradition and similar proceedings, and said: ‘the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any . .
Cited – Maslov v Austria ECHR 23-Jun-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant came lawfully to Austria when 6. He committed a large number of offences when he was 14 and 15, and had been sentenced to imprisonment. He complained of a later decision to deport him.
Held: The court said: ‘ The . .
Cited – AA v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Sep-2011
. .
Cited – Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
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 . .
Cited – Agyarko and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
Appeals against orders for removal after applicants had each married after expiry of the period of their lawful stay. A conceded that her application fell outside the Rules, but said that it was an appropriate case for the exercise of discretion. . .
Cited – Jeunesse v The Netherlands ECHR 3-Oct-2014
(Grand Chamber) Although the applicant had married and had three children while her immigration status in the Netherlands was precarious, there were exceptional circumstances such that a fair balance had not been struck between the competing . .
Cited – IAA And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Jan-2014
. .
Cited – Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation CA 1971
The court hear an appeal to quarter sessions against a licensing decision taken by a local authority. The application was rejected by the local authority against whose decision an appeal lay to the Quarter Sessions. The Recorder allowed the appeal . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Cited – Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v The Netherlands ECHR 31-Jan-2006
A Brazilian mother came to the Netherlands in 1994 and set up home with a Dutch national but not applying for a residence permit. In 1996 they had a daughter who became a Dutch national. In 1997 they split up and the daughter remained with her . .
Cited – OH (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Apr-2008
Wilson LJ considered N (Kenya) and said: ‘Primary responsibility for the public interest, whose view of it is likely to be wide and better informed than that of a tribunal, resides in the respondent and accordingly a tribunal hearing an appeal . .
Cited – Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had fled Zimbabwe. Though her asylum application was refused, she was not returned for the temporary suspension of such orders to Zimbabwe. In the meantime she married and had a child. She now appealed an order for her removal citing . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
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 . .
Cited – DS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Jun-2009
Rix LJ said that the public interest in deportation of those who commit serious crimes goes well beyond depriving the offender in question of the right to re-offend in this country; it extends to deterring and preventing serious crime generally and . .
Cited – Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v City Of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 21-Jul-2009
. .
Cited – Norris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Cited – Hope and Glory Public House Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Others CA 26-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the approach which should be taken by a Magistrates Court hearing an appeal from a decision under the 2003 Act.
Held: Before a Magistrates’ Court can interfere with the Sub-Committee’s decision, it must be satisfied . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 8-Oct-2013
The court was asked: ‘How is the reference in rule 398 to ‘exceptional circumstances’ to be understood, compatibly with Convention rights?’
Held: The Court of Appeal accepted the submission made on behalf of the Secretary of State that the . .
Cited – Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2013
The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the . .
Cited – LC (China) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Oct-2014
Appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 30th September 2013 allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which had itself allowed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for The Home Department v AJ (Angola) CA 17-Dec-2014
. .
Cited – Ali and Bibi, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Nov-2015
At the claimants alleged that the rules requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here were an unjustifiable interference . .
Cited – Bouchelkia v France ECHR 29-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Boujlifa v France ECHR 21-Oct-1997
(French Text) . .
Cited – Maslov v Austria ECHR 23-Jun-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant came lawfully to Austria when 6. He committed a large number of offences when he was 14 and 15, and had been sentenced to imprisonment. He complained of a later decision to deport him.
Held: The court said: ‘ The . .
Cited – Nunez v Norway ECHR 28-Jun-2011
Article 8 rights can be sufficient to tip the balance in favour against deportation of an immigrant. . .
Cited – Re B-S (Children) CA 17-Sep-2013
The mother had been refused leave to oppose her child’s adoption. She now appealed.
Held: A court facing such an application faced two questions: Has there been a change in circumstances? If not, that is the end of the matter. If yes, then the . .
Cited – Agyarko and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
Appeals against orders for removal after applicants had each married after expiry of the period of their lawful stay. A conceded that her application fell outside the Rules, but said that it was an appropriate case for the exercise of discretion. . .

Cited by:

Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Cited – Agyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .
Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.571291

AJ (S 94B: Kiarie and Byndloss Questions) Nigeria: UTIAC 28 Feb 2018

(1) In the light of Kiarie and Byndloss v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42, the First-tier Tribunal should adopt a step-by-step approach, in order to determine whether an appeal certified under section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 can be determined without the appellant being physically present in the United Kingdom.
(2) The First-tier Tribunal should address the following questions:
1. Has the appellant’s removal pursuant to a section 94B certificate deprived the appellant of the ability to secure legal representation and/or to give instructions and receive advice from United Kingdom lawyers?
2. If not, is the appellant’s absence from the United Kingdom likely materially to impair the production of expert and other professional evidence in respect of the appellant, upon which the appellant would otherwise have relied?
3. If not, is it necessary to hear live evidence from the appellant?
4. If so, can such evidence, in all the circumstances, be given in a satisfactory manner by means of video-link?
(3) The First-tier Tribunal should not lightly come to the conclusion that none of the issues covered by the first and second questions prevents the fair hearing of the appeal.
(4) Even if the first and second questions are answered in the negative, the need for live evidence from the appellant is likely to be present. A possible exception might be where the respondent’s case is that, even taking a foreign offender appellant’s case at its highest, as regards family relationships, remorse and risk of re-offending, the public interest is still such as to make deportation a proportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of all concerned
(5) If the First-tier Tribunal concludes that the appeal cannot be lawfully determined unless the appellant is physically present in the United Kingdom, it should give a direction to that effect and adjourn the proceedings.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 115 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.617016

Caroopen and Myrie v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 Dec 2016

Appeal from refusal of leave to remain – application for judicial review – further reasons given – status of additional letters.
Held: The two certifications were based upon a legal misdirection.
However: ‘There may in practice be relatively few cases where removal for an interim period pending an appeal would be in breach of Convention rights in the absence of a risk of serious irreversible harm, but it is a possibility which must be focused on as a necessary part of the decision-making process.’ The misdirection in Mr Kiarie’s case had not been material because, even had she applied the overarching criterion, the Home Secretary would still have certified his claim; and that the misdirection in the first certification of Mr Byndloss’ claim had been cured by a correct direction in the second certification of it.

Judges:

Black , Beatson , Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 1307, [2016] WLR(D) 690, [2017] 1 WLR 2339, [2017] INLR 283, [2017] Imm AR 930

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.572734

Mohibullah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (TOEIC – ETS – Judicial Review Principles): UTIAC 23 Dec 2016

UTIAC (i) Where there is a multiplicity of decision making mechanisms, some generating a right of appeal and others not, there is a public law duty on the decision maker to be aware of the options and to take same into account when opting for a particular mechanism.
(ii) Where a Tier 4 Student is considered to have made false representations, thereby being liable to discretionary curtailment of leave and has been withdrawn from a course, thereby being liable to mandatory curtailment action there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consider both of the corresponding sections in the ‘Curtailment of Leave’ policy guidance.
(iii) A failure to give effect to policy guidance without justification is in breach of the Lumba principle and renders the ensuing decision vulnerable to being quashed.
(iv) Where a curtailment of leave decision is underpinned by the Secretary of State’s decision that leave to remain had been procured by deception, the appropriate standard of review is the Wednesbury principle rather than proof of the precedent fact of deception.
(v) A decision which has a conspicuously unfair impact on the subject may qualify for condemnation as unreasonable, or irrational, in contravention of the Wednesbury principle.
(vi) The student’s knowledge of an allegation by ETS that he has procured his TOEIC certificate by deception will normally suffice to convey the gist of the case against him, thereby rendering the Secretary of State’s decision making process (in this respect) procedurally fair.
The facility for a statutory appeal would have been preferable to the mechanism of judicial review and that it would be preferable for any statutory appeal to be able to be brought from within the UK: ‘Experience has demonstrated that in such cases detailed scrutiny of the demeanour and general presentation of parties and witnesses is a highly important factor. So too is close quarters assessment of how the proceedings are being conducted – for example, unscheduled requests for the production of further documents, the response thereto, the conduct of all present in the courtroom, the taking of further instructions in the heat of battle and related matters. These examples could be multiplied. I have found the mechanism of evidence by video link to be quite unsatisfactory in other contexts, both civil and criminal. It is not clear whether the aforementioned essential judicial exercises could be conducted satisfactorily in an out of country appeal. Furthermore, there would be a loss of judicial control and supervision of events in the distant, remote location, with associated potential for misuse of the judicial process.’

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 561 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.573728

Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency): SC 5 Apr 2017

The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but with no explanation of the connection. Naaem was an imam. He began as a part time prison chaplain, but the pension arrangements were changed so that even though working full time, he was disadvantaged. He appealed from a finding that having been unable to show a connection between the inirect discrimination suffered, and the protected characteristic, his action must fail.
Held: Over time the wording in the European directives and the UK statutes implementing them had changed, but in none of the various definitions of indirect discrimination, is there any express requirement for an explanation of the reasons why a particular PCP puts one group at a disadvantage when compared with others.
The arguments put forward by the respondent do not justify importing words into the statute (and the Directives which lay behind it) which are simply not there and which, as the Court of Appeal recognised, could lead to the continuation of unlawful discrimination, which would be contrary to the public interest. In order to succeed in an indirect discrimination claim, it is not necessary to establish the reason for the particular disadvantage to which the group is put. The essential element is a causal connection between the PCP and the disadvantage suffered, not only by the group, but also by the individual. This may be easier to prove if the reason for the group disadvantage is known but that is a matter of fact, not law.
The definitions of direct and indirect discrimination also differed: ‘Direct discrimination expressly requires a causal link between the less favourable treatment and the protected characteristic. Indirect discrimination does not. Instead it requires a causal link between the PCP and the particular disadvantage suffered by the group and the individual. The reason for this is that the prohibition of direct discrimination aims to achieve equality of treatment. Indirect discrimination assumes equality of treatment – the PCP is applied indiscriminately to all – but aims to achieve a level playing field, where people sharing a particular protected characteristic are not subjected to requirements which many of them cannot meet but which cannot be shown to be justified.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 27, [2017] ICR 640, [2017] 1 WLR 1343, [2017] IRLR 558, [2017] WLR(D) 244, [2017] 3 All ER 551, UKSC 2015/0161

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT – Naeem v The Secretary of State for Justice EAT 15-Jan-2014
EAT Race Discrimination : Indirect – RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Until 2002 the only Chaplains employed by the Prison Service were Christians. Since then, Chaplains of other faiths have been . .
At EAT – Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) EAT 16-May-2014
EAT Race Discrimination : Indirect – In a test case, it was assumed that BME candidates disproportionately failed the CSA test, passing which was necessary to progress to higher grades in the Civil Service. The . .
Appeal from – Naeem v The Secretary of State for Justice CA 9-Dec-2015
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for discrimination when under the 1952 Act, there was a requirement to appoint a member as pastor of the prison a Clergyman of the Church of England, and other chaplains, including himself, an . .
Appeal from – Home Office (UK Border Agency) v Essop and Others CA 22-Jun-2015
The appellant challenged a finding that it was guilty of indirect race discrimination. A statistical study showed that BME candidates did rather less well on a standard assessment test, but while the correlation was clear, the manner of . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission HL 1989
At the council’s independent, single-sex grammar schools there were more places available for boys than girls. Consequently the council were obliged to set a higher pass mark for girls than boys in the grammar school entrance examination.
Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL 14-Jun-1990
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . .
Cited – Swiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
Cited – Bull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .
Cited – Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 25-Apr-2012
The appellant had failed in his claim for indirect age discrimination. Approaching retirement, he complained that new conditions allowing advancement to graduates only, discriminated against him since he could not complete a degree before retiring. . .
Cited – The Audit Commission v Haq and Others EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material Factor Defence and Justification
Two roles (‘IIO’ and ‘SIIO’) amalgamated into a new role (‘SIO’), on the basis that affected employees retain their existing points on the . .
Cited – Haq and Others v The Audit Commission CA 6-Dec-2012
Not upheld . .
Cited – Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College and others CA 23-Mar-2001
The college failed to renew contracts for lecturers on one year fixed term contracts. A greater proportion of women were subject to such contracts, and the dismissal fell entirely on part time and hourly paid workforce. The condition which the . .
Cited – Wilson v Health and Safety Executive CA 20-Oct-2009
The employer appealed against a finding that it had acted in an equal pay claim in allowing for length of service.
Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed. Decisions based on length of service tended to discriminate against women, because . .
Cited – Grundy v British Airways Plc CA 23-Oct-2007
The claimant, a cabin crew member of the defendant’s staff sought damages for sex discrimination.
Held: Sedley LJ said that the pool chosen should be that which suitably tests the particular discrimination complained of. . .
Cited – Cadman v Health and Safety Executive, intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission ECJ 3-Oct-2006
Social Policy – The court considered what went to make up age discrimination: ‘the Court acknowledged that rewarding, in particular, experience acquired which enables the worker to perform his duties better constitutes a legitimate objective of pay . .

Cited by:

Cited – Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 24-May-2017
The appellant female prisoner asserted that the much smaller number of probation and bail hostels provided for women prisoners when released on licence was discriminatory in leaving greater numbers of women far removed from their families.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.581352

Maslov v Austria: ECHR 23 Jun 2008

(Grand Chamber) The applicant came lawfully to Austria when 6. He committed a large number of offences when he was 14 and 15, and had been sentenced to imprisonment. He complained of a later decision to deport him.
Held: The court said: ‘ The Court would stress that while the criteria which emerge from its case-law and are spelled out in the Boultif and Uner judgments are meant to facilitate the application of Article 8 in expulsion cases by domestic courts, the weight to be attached to the respective criteria will inevitably vary according to the specific circumstances of each case. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that where, as in the present case, the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 pursues, as a legitimate aim, the ‘prevention of disorder or crime’ . . the above criteria ultimately are designed to help evaluate the extent to which the applicant can be expected to cause disorder or to engage in criminal activities.
In a case like the present one, where the person to be expelled is a young adult who has not yet founded a family of his own, the relevant criteria are:
– the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant;
– the length of the applicant’s stay in the country from which he or she is to be expelled;
– the time elapsed since the offence was committed and the applicant’s conduct during that period;
– the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination.
The Court would also clarify that the age of the person concerned can play a role when applying some of the above criteria. For instance, when assessing the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by an applicant, it has to be taken into account whether he or she committed them as a juvenile or as an adult (see, for instance, Moustaquim v. Belgium, judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no.193, p.19, ss 44, and Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, ss 35, 22 April 2004).
In turn, when assessing the length of the applicant’s stay in the country from which he or she is to be expelled and the solidity of the social, cultural and family ties with the host country, it evidently makes a difference whether the person concerned had already come to the country during his or her childhood or youth, or was even born there, or whether he or she only came as an adult. This tendency is also reflected in various Council of Europe instruments, in particular in Committee of Minister Recommendations Rec (2001)15 and Rec (2002)4 . .
Although Article 8 provides no absolute protection against expulsion for any category of aliens (see Uner, cited above, ss 55), including those who were born in the host country or moved there in their early childhood, the Court has already found that regard is to be had to the special situation of aliens who have spent most, if not all, their childhood in the host country, were brought up there and received their education there (see Uner, ss 58 in fine).
In short, the Court considers that for a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or the major part of his or her childhood and youth in the host country very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion.’

Judges:

Jean-Paul Costa, P

Citations:

[2008] ECHR 546, 1638/03, [2009] INLR 47

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Maslov v Austria ECHR 22-Mar-2007
. .

Cited by:

Cited – MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-May-2010
The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights.
Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – Ogundimu (Article 8 – New Rules) Nigeria UTIAC 8-Feb-2013
UTIAC 1 The expectation is that it will be an exceptional case in which permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal should be granted where the lodging of the application for permission is more than 28 days out of . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.420795

OQ (India) v Entry Clearance Officer: CA 11 Jun 2009

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 817

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Leave – OQ (India) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; SM (India) v Same CA 25-Nov-2009
The claimants sought a right of entry and of residence as dependants of EU citizens. They had been refused by the entry clearance officer.
Held: The test of the status of a dependent member of a worker’s family was the result of a factual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.381570

Williams, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Feb 2017

Challenge to regulations requiring payment of fee on application for naturalistion by all applicants irrespective of means.

Judges:

Davis, Underhill, Macur LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 98, [2017] 1 WLR 3283, [2017] WLR(D) 172

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.577500

Hussein v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 21 Oct 2009

The complaint as to a detention pending a decision on whether one of the exceptions to automatic deportation applies.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2492 (Admin), [2010] Imm AR 320

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376216

V, Regina (on the Application of) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and Another: Admn 24 Jul 2009

The applicant was brought to this country as a baby, and his family had been granted indefinite leave to remain and or citizenship. Attaining adulthood, he appealed refusal of such status because of his criminal record.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1902 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361465

MB and Others v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 1 Feb 2013

The applicants renewed their asylum claims against a background of having lied about earlier applications.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 123 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Tesfay and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 4-May-2016
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.470697

TDT, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 29 Jul 2016

The claimant child alleged that the defendant had released him from administrative immigration detention without first putting safeguarding arrangements in place, leave him iat risk, in particular of becoming victim to human trafficking.

Judges:

McGowan J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1912 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.567874