Tag: Immigration

MH (Accession Nationals Not Now Removed) Slovakia: IAT 30 Nov 2004

It is Home Office Policy that citizens of EU countries who were in the United Kingdom at the date of their country’s accession to the EU will not be removed unless they pose a threat to public health, public policy or public security. Appeals by such individuals should therefore be allowed (on EU grounds only) unless they are shown to pose such threat.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219997

Commission v Luxembourg C-445/03: ECJ 21 Oct 2004

ECJ Failure of a State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Requirements imposed by the host Member State on undertakings which deploy within its territory salaried workers who are nationals of non-member countries.

Citations:

[2004] EUECJ C-445/03, [2004] ECR I-10191, ECLI:EU:C:2004:655, [2005] 1 CMLR 22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Low and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2009
In each case the applicant, a company based in Ireland had employed in its restaurants, Chinese nationals who were unlawfully present here. The company sought judicial review of the arrest of its employees.
Held: ‘None of the claimants had any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219031

Darji v Secretary State for the Home Department; Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 28 Oct 2004

The two applicants were Nepalese from Bhutan who sought asylum on the grounds of fear of persecution and of human rights abuses if returned to Nepal.

Judges:

Mr Justice Gage, Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218863

Gashi v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 5 Nov 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1747

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Swash v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 26-Jul-2006
The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218517

Uruakpa, Regina (on the Application Of) v British Council: CA 8 Oct 2002

Application for permission to appeal a decision refusing the claimant and his wife, permission to seek judicial review of the British Council’s decision not to renew their sponsorship of the claimant.

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1742

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health Professions

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217763

Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Jul 2014

The court was asked whether the Claimant’s proposed deportation to Jamaica, following his conviction and imprisonment for a very serious criminal offence, involves a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘the Human Rights Act’). The discrimination is said to arise because the Claimant did not become a British citizen when he was born in Jamaica as the illegitimate child of a British citizen, whereas he would have been a British citizen if he had been a legitimate child, and a British citizen cannot be deported.
Held: ‘ (1) that there has been a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 8 of the ECHR, because the Claimant is currently being treated differently on the ground that he was illegitimate, and that such treatment is not justifiable; (2) there is no sustainable separate ground of complaint on the basis of immigration status; (3) it is not possible to interpret the provisions of section 162(5) of the 2002 Act to permit the Defendant to establish a scheme permitting persons to opt into section 50(9) of the 1981 Act as amended; (4) the parties should liaise to attempt to agree remedies to give effect to this judgment, failing which a short further hearing will be arranged; (5) the ‘clearly unfounded’ certification of the Claimant’s human rights claims should be quashed.’

Judges:

Dingemans J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2386 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Genovese v Malta ECHR 11-Oct-2011
The applicant was illegitimate, born to a British mother and a Maltese father. Paternity had been established scientifically and in judicial proceedings. The father refused to recognise his son on the birth certificate, and the applicant’s mother . .

Cited by:

At Admn – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Jan-2016
The appellant was Jamaican by birth, but had lived here with his British father since the age of four. Had his parents been married, he would have had British nationality. As he grew to an adult he was convicted on several serious matters. He now . .
At Admn – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Oct-2016
The court was asked: ‘Is it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights to deny British citizenship to the child of a British father and a non-British mother simply because they were not married to one another at the time of his birth or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.535130

Zafar, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 25 May 2016

Claim for damages after detention uunder the former ‘Detained Fast Track’ system used for persons whose claims for asylum or humanitarian protection were considered by the Defendant to be capable of swift and fair determination were detained and their claims evaluated.

Judges:

Andrews DBE J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1217 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.564806

AK (Failure To Assess Witnesses’ Evidence) Turkey: IAT 23 Aug 2004

The appellant appealed against the adjudicator’s rejection of his claim for asylum saying his evidence was incredible.
Held: The adjudicator’s decision was unsustainable. His recording of the evidence had been inadequate: ‘he ought as a matter of good practice to summarise at least the material parts of the evidence which he has heard so as to enable an informed reader to ascertain the nature and content of that evidence, and also to enable him to be satisfied that the adjudicator has directed his mind properly to the material aspects of the evidence. In general, it is not sufficient for an adjudicator merely to record that a witness has relied on his or her witness statement, although there may be particular circumstances in which that would suffice, e.g. where the evidence in question relates to facts which are not in dispute between the parties, or which are irrelevant to the issues on which the outcome of the appeal will turn. ‘

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00230

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200579

EA (Article 8, Entry Clearance, Delay) Iraq: IAT 25 Aug 2004

The applicant had entered the UK seeking sylum from Iraq. The adjudicator had allowed her appeal on Human Rights grounds, and the Secretary of State appealed. The claimant had since married in the UK, and her removal wouuld break up her married life. The adjudicator had taken into account the lack of co-operation of the respondent.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
Cited – Starred M v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Croatia) IAT 12-Feb-2004
‘The starting point should be that if in the circumstances the removal could reasonably be regarded as proportionate, whether or not the Secretary of State has actually said so or applied his mind to the issue, it is lawful. The Tribunal and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200582

Regina on the Application of Borak v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 30 Jul 2004

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s certificate as to his asylum claim under s96(2).
Held: The applicant had made a claim under human rights law. That had been rejected. He now sought to renew his application as an asylum claim, but on substantially the same facts. The respondent was free to give his certificate, and to prevent the claimant arguing substantially the same points twice.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1861 (Admin), Times 15-Sep-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 96(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200304

Nadarajah Senthuran v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 16 Jul 2004

The claimant appealed refusal of his claim for asylum, saying that an order for his removal would breach his article 8 rights in separating him from his family.
Held: The Tribunal was wrong to think that Advic said that family ties could never give rise to an article 8 infringement on removal. The issue was one of fact in each case. The applicant had lived with one or other of his siblings since arrival, and there would be a fresh hearing.

Judges:

The President

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 950, Times 03-Aug-2004, [2005] 1 FLR 229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Salad IAT 2002
. .
Cited – Advia / Advic v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Sep-1995
(Commission) In the ordinary course of events the fact that there are siblings in the same jurisdiction as an applicant does not establish a family life per se. There must be some genuine connection between siblings for family life to obtain, . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199811

AZ (Eligibility for Amnesty) Uganda: IAT 22 Jun 2004

‘The Secretary of State appeals the determination of an Adjudicator (Mr J F W Philips), who allowed the appeal of a citizen of Uganda (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the appellant) from the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse his application for asylum. The determination is reported because it concerns the question of the appellant’s eligibility for consideration under the amnesty.’

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00166, [2004] UKIAT 166

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199013

Morris, Regina (on the Application Of) v Westminster City Council,: Admn 26 May 2004

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1199 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .

Cited by:

See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council Admn 13-Oct-2003
. .
See Also – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Children

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198219

Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia: QBD 11 Oct 1995

An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995, Independent 11-Oct-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88303

Regina (on the Application of Gjovalin Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 11 May 2004

The claimant was stopped when boarding a flight to Canada, having previously stopped in France and Italy. He bore a false Swedish passport, and intended to claim asylum in Canada. He now claimed the benefit of the article 31 (per Adimi), to defend a prosecution under the 1981 Act for using a false instrument.
Held: The scope of section 31 was less than article 31 of the Convention, which did not apply directly, but only through the section. The court should attempt to construe the section to give effect to the Convention, but if it could not, it had to apply the section. That was the case here. No legitimate expectation could arise in favour of the claimant. A decision to prosecute is not ordinarily subject to judicial review save in wholly exceptional circumstances.
Thomas LJ said: ‘In view of the frequency of applications seeking to challenge decisions to prosecute, we wish to make it clear . . that, save in wholly exceptional circumstances, applications in respect of pending prosecutions that seek to challenge the decision to prosecute should not be made to this court. The proper course to follow, as should have been followed in this case, is to take the point in accordance with the procedures of the Criminal Courts. In the Crown Court that would ordinarily be by way of defence in the Crown Court and if necessary on appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The circumstances in which a challenge is made to the bringing of a prosecution should be very rare indeed as the speeches in Kebilene make clear.’

Judges:

Silber, Mr Justice Silber Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 798 (Admin), Times 21-May-2004, [2004] INLR 638

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31, Convention and Protocol Status of Refugees 31, Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
Cited – JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry HL 1989
An undisclosed principal will not be permitted to claim to be party to a contract if this is contrary to the terms of the contract itself. Thus the provision in the standard form B contract of the London Metal Exchange ‘this contract is made between . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Fraydon Navabi; Senait Tekie Embaye CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted of not having an immigration document when presenting themselves for interview. They had handed their passports to the ‘agents’ who had assisted their entry.
Held: The jury should have been directed as to the . .
Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196702

BD (Application of SK and DK) Croatia CG: IAT 26 Feb 2004

Judges:

Ouseley J P

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Jul-2004
The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. The claimant appealed that finding.
Held: The jurisdiction of the IAT was now restricted to issues of law. The respondents submissions to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194171

Z v Secretary of State for the Home Department (China): IAT 6 Feb 2004

The SS appealed against the decision of an Adjudicator allowing the respondent’s appeal on asylum grounds and on human rights grounds under both Article 3 and Article 8, against the decision of the appellant to direct her removal.

Citations:

[2004] UKIAT 00017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193559