Tag: Immigration

MP (Protection Subsidiaire D’Une Victime De Tortures Passees): ECJ 24 Apr 2018

ECJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 4 – Directive 2004/83/EC – Article 2(e) – Eligibility for subsidiary protection – Article 15(b) – Risk of serious harm to the psychological health of the applicant if returned to the country of origin – Person who has been tortured in the country of origin

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 249, [2018] EUECJ C-353/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:276

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609319

Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 13 Apr 2018

Judges:

Michael Kent QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 800 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 218, [2018] 4 WLR 76

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 3-Jul-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608948

In re Acosta: 1985

US Board of Immigration Appeals –
Held: ‘We find the well-established doctrine of ejusdem generis, meaning literally, ‘of the same kind,’ to be most helpful in construing the phrase ‘membership in a particular social group.’ That doctrine holds that general words used in an enumeration with specific words should be construed in a manner consistent with the specific words… The other grounds of persecution in the Act and the Protocol listed in association with ‘membership in a particular social group’ are ‘persecution on account of ‘race’, ‘religion,”nationality’ and ‘political opinion.’ Each of these grounds describes persecution aimed at an immutable characteristic: a characteristic that either is beyond the power of an individual to change or is so fundamental to individual identity or conscience that it ought not to be required to be changed . . Thus, the other four grounds of persecution enumerated in the Act and the Protocol restrict refugee status to individuals who are either unable by their own actions, or as a matter of conscience should not be required, to avoid persecution. Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, we interpret the phrase ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ to mean persecution that is directed toward an individual who is a member of a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic. The shared characteristic might be an innate one such as sex, colour or kinship ties, or in some circumstances it might be a shared past experience such as former military leadership or land ownership. The particular kind of group characteristic that will qualify under this construction remains to be determined on a case-by-case basis . . By construing ‘persecution on account of membership in a particular social group’ in this manner, we preserve the concept that refuge is restricted to individuals who are either unable by their own actions, or as a matter of conscience should not be required, to avoid persecution.”

Citations:

[1985] 19 I and N 2011

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees made at Geneva in 1951

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
Cited – Evans, Regina v CACD 23-Jan-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction in a case concerning the use of a false passport. The central issue was whether the appellant had a defence based upon the proposition that he was a refugee entitled to asylum in this country. He had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.570117

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Kaur (Justice, Intervener) Case C-192/99: ECJ 8 Mar 2001

The applicant had a British Passport, but had a British overseas citizen without a right of residence. Temporary leave to stay was renewed but eventually terminated. She claimed to be a citizen and therefore under European law entitled to freedom of movement within the EU. When the UK became a member of the EU it declared how it wished nationality to be defined. This was renewed and altered with the new Immigration Act. Customary international law allowed states to have different classes of citizenship with different rights, and her rights were determined by reference to the 1982 declaration.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2001

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981, ECTreaty Art 17 and 18

Immigration, European, International

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88639

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yiadom Case C-357/98: ECJ 16 Nov 2000

Where a citizen of a member state had been granted temporary admission, pending a final decision on whether she should be admitted or expelled, that decision was not one which could be classified as a ‘decision concerning entry,’ for the purposes of the directive, and by legal fiction the person was deemed to be out of the country, and accordingly was entitled to the procedural safeguards given by Article 9.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2000

Statutes:

ECTreaty Article 234, Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals, Immigration Act 1971 11(1)

Immigration, European

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88657

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jammeh; Regina v Same Ex Parte Bajraktari; Similar: QBD 11 Sep 1997

The policy of not allowing asylum seekers to have work permits could not continue alongside the withdrawal of benefits and is ultra vires the powers of the Secretary of State.

Citations:

Times 11-Sep-1997

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88637

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte Ali: QBD 25 Sep 1998

An adjudication officer, finding that an appeal had been abandoned, was entitled accordingly to decide the matter without consideration of the facts. The absence of statutory authority was decisive in view of long standing practice. Rules not ultra vires

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-1998

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration Act 1993, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 (1996 No 2070)

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86922

Regina (Gavira) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 15 May 2001

The procedure whereby the Secretary of State could certify that an asylum seeker’s claim did not disclose a valid ground, did not allow the Secretary to issue a certificate which depended upon a denial of the truth of the applicant’s claim. Where the claim asserted that the asylum-seeker had a fear of prosecution based upon facts which, if true, would bring her claim within the United Nations Convention, was a claim showing a fear of prosecution. The use of the procedure relying upon the disbelief of the applicant was quite unreasonable.

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001

Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85969

Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: QBD 12 Jun 2001

Where the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dealt with an appeal by remitting the case back to a special adjudicator for a rehearing, it had concluded the appeal, and it did not thereby delegate to the adjudicator its own function of deciding the appeal. There was no distinction to be made between procedural and substantive remittals. Remittal always involved disposing of the appeal to the IAT. Such a remittal was not a final determination of the appeal under section 9. The full Tribunal could not set aside an interlocutory decision of the chairman. That function was for the IAT.

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2001

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Sch 4, Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000 (SI 2000 no 2333) 23

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86008

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Asif: QBD 14 Mar 2000

When an applicant for asylum could only base his claim of a connection with this country by demonstrating a history of financial support provided by his family from this country, it was not irrational or unreasonable for the Home Secretary to deem such connection insufficient.

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2000

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85518

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Quaquah: QBD 20 Jan 2000

An asylum seeker had been wrongly accused of riot and sought to sue for damages for malicious prosecution. The Home Secretary, a possible defendant in that action decided to expel the failed asylum seeker.
Held: Such an action was in breach of the principle of equality of arms enshrined in the treaty, and deprived the applicant of any opportunity to prepare and present his case. The Secretary should have considered these elements before ordering the deportation.

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jan-2000, Times 21-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969), Civil Procedure Rules Rule 1.1(2)(a)

Cited by:

See Also – Quaquah v Group 4 Securities Ltd and Another QBD 27-Jun-2001
The claimant had been detained in an immigration detention centre. He complained of a malicious prosecution by the company, and against the secretary of state, in exercising a non-delegable duty to provide for his safety whilst in custody.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85525

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Popatia and Another: QBD 18 Jul 2000

Where a notice of intention to deport had been issued, but had not come to the attention of the proposed deportee, this would not work to break the period of time after which the applicant could claim a 14 year residence concession. Though the procedures had been lawful at the time, the legitimate expectation created by the non-service must take precedence.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2000

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85535

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Ullah: QBD 17 Oct 2000

The fact that a claimant had acquired British citizenship in one way did not take away his right in addition to apply for naturalisation arising from his rights by descent. The latter process would create additional rights for his own children, and he had the right to apply. There was nothing in the legislation to suggest that the two alternatives were mutually exclusive, and the Home Office’s practice to the contrary was unlawful.

Citations:

Times 17-Oct-2000

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 6

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85541

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 7 Sep 2000

A finding that the applicant was an illegal immigrant had been subject to an application for judicial review on the basis that there had been insufficient evidence of an intent to deceive. The review had been refused because of the applicant’s delay. The applicant later sought to claim habeas corpus.
Held: This application was in effect merely a repetition of the earlier rejected application, and was an abuse of process. Although the review application had been refused for delay, the court had considered and rejected the merits of the application.

Citations:

Times 07-Sep-2000

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85508

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Saleem: QBD 11 Nov 1999

The rule which deemed an appellant to have received notice of the determination of his appeal two days after it was posted, irrespective of whether it in fact was received by him was ultra vires and unlawful. The effect of such a rule was draconian and could not be justified by reference to the Act under which the rules were made.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 22, Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 No 2070

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85314

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Anderson, Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi: QBD 22 Mar 2000

There is no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against either a decision of an adjudicator to make or one to refuse to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State when he was himself refusing an appeal. Nor is such a decision subject to judicial review. This practice, unlike that on granting an appeal, was an extra statutory concession, and it could not be a determination of any question in issue under the appeal to the adjudicator.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 20

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi CA 3-Aug-2000
There is no appeal from the decision of an adjudicator not to recommend that there existed sufficient compassionate grounds for granting exceptional leave to remain in the UK in the absence of any statutory grounds for such a recommendation. A . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi CA 3-Aug-2000
There is no appeal from the decision of an adjudicator not to recommend that there existed sufficient compassionate grounds for granting exceptional leave to remain in the UK in the absence of any statutory grounds for such a recommendation. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85315

Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Wanyoike: QBD 10 Mar 2000

A chairman of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal had refused to allow an appeal against an earlier order. He then discovered that certain information had not been made available to him. He re-opened his decision, but came to the same conclusion. The applicant sought to review that decision, on the grounds that an expectation had been created that he would be granted leave to appeal. His original decision had been a determination, and so was not open to such a review, or reconsideration.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000

Immigration

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85316

Kuijer v Council of the European Union Case T-188/98: ECJ 14 Apr 2000

An applicant sought access to documents of the Council of the European Union relating to asylum. The decision of the Council to refuse access to the documents was on the grounds that the material was politically sensitive, and disclosure would be against the public interest. The council failed however to consider the status of the separate documents separately, and so the decision was invalid. The default position was that Council documents should be made available, and the ability to withhold related to individual documents.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Council Decision 93/731/EC on Public Access to Council documents

European, Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82854

In Re Saidur Rahman: QBD 18 Jul 1996

A court hearing a deportation review should see all the evidence, including hearsay evidence if necessary.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-1996

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman CA 11-Dec-1996
Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Rahman CA 11-Dec-1996
Hearsay evidence is admissible when considering whether an applicant is an illegal entrant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82186

PP v The Home Office and Another: QBD 30 Mar 2017

The claimant had said that she was a victim of human trafficking. That claim being rejected, she was taken into immigration detention. She now claimed that this was unlawful.
Held: That the request for review was out of time did not defeat the claim where, the strict requirement having been relaxed because of the nature of the claim. However, the claim of false imprisonment should not be struck out.

Judges:

Parkes QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 663 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 233

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Human Rights, Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.581416

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Banger: ECJ 10 Apr 2018

Citizenship of The Union – UK – Return of A Union Citizen To The Member State – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Article 21 TFEU – Return of a Union citizen to the Member State of which that citizen is a national after having exercised free movement rights in another Member State – Right of residence of a third-country national who is a member of the extended family of a Union citizen – Application by analogy of Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 3(2)(b) – Obligation to facilitate, in accordance with national legislation, entry and residence for the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship – Right of appeal – Scope of judicial review – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Citations:

C-89/17, [2018] EUECJ C-89/17 – O, [2018] EUECJ C-89/17

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608629

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v MS (Pakistan): CA 23 Mar 2018

The SSHD appealed from decision against its own decision to remove the applicant, after it had been found that he was not a victim of human trafficking

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 594, [2018] WLR(D) 191, [2018] 4 WLR 63

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2006 82 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608360

Brey v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt: ECJ 19 Sep 2013

Judgment – Freedom of movement for persons – Union Citizenship – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of residence for more than three months – Article 7(1)(b) – Person no longer having worker status – Person in possession of a retirement pension – Having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the ‘social assistance system’ of the host Member State – Application for a special non-contributory cash benefit – Compensatory supplement intended to augment a retirement pension – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Articles 3(2) and 70 – Competence of the Member State of residence – Conditions for granting – Legal right to reside on the national territory – Compliance with European Union law

Citations:

[2013] EUECJ C-140/12, [2014] 1 WLR 1080, [2013] WLR(D) 352, [2014] All ER (EC) 534, ECLI:EU:C:2013:565, [2014] 1 CMLR 37

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Brey v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt ECJ 29-May-2013
ECJ (Opinion) Citizenship of the Union – Freedom of movement for persons – Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of residence for a period longer than three months on the territory of another Member . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mirga v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Samin v Westminster City Council SC 27-Jan-2016
The claimants, a Polish national and an Austrian national, appealed against decisions of the Court of Appeal upholding decisions that they were not entitled to certain benefits, namely income support and housing assistance respectively, pursuant to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605856

AB, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 6 Mar 2018

The court was asked whether rule 334(i) of the Immigration Rules requires an applicant for asylum in the United Kingdom to be present in the country at the time of the decision on the application.
Held: It does

Judges:

Ryder SPT, Hickinbottom, Leggatt LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 383

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605782

Shah (‘Cart’ Judicial Review: Nature and Consequences): UTIAC 3 Jan 2018

(1) A judicial review challenge to the decision of the Upper Tribunal to refuse permission to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal is a challenge to the lawfulness of the Upper Tribunal’s decision. It is emphatically not an opportunity for a party to raise new grounds of appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
(2) Whether or not a person succeeds in obtaining permission of the High Court under CPR 54.7A to judicially review a decision to refuse permission to appeal, with the consequence that the decision is quashed, the Upper Tribunal will need to be satisfied that there is an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal before that decision can be disturbed. Judicial review grounds which fail to show the decision refusing permission was wrong in law are highly unlikely to lead to such a result.
(3) Those responsible for drafting judicial review grounds which are found by the Upper Tribunal to contain misrepresentations or other falsities may be referred by that Tribunal to the High Court, for consideration whether an explanation is required from the solicitors and/or counsel involved.

Judges:

Lane J P, Blum UTJ

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 51 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605708

Thapa and Others (Costs: General Principles; S9 Review): UTIAC 16 Jan 2018

(1) What emerges from the guidance in Cancino (costs – First-tier Tribunal – new powers) [2015] UKFTT 59 (IAC) is that the power to award costs in rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 and rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 is to be exercised with significant restraint and that detailed examinations of other decided cases are unlikely to assist in deciding whether to award costs under either of those rules.
(2) Section 9 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, read with the relevant procedure rules, enables the First-tier Tribunal to review, set aside and re-decide a case where, on the materials available to the judge deciding an application for permission to appeal, an error of law has occurred and (as in the present case) a party has thereby been deprived of a fair hearing. In the present case, such a course would have avoided the need for the matter to come before the Upper Tribunal and have resulted in a more expeditious outcome.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 54 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Costs

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605709

Ahmed and Others (Valid Application – Burden of Proof): UTIAC 10 Jan 2018

(1) Central to the analysis in Basnet (validity of application – respondent) [2012] UKUT 113 (IAC) is the existence of a further procedure undertaken by the Secretary of State in order to process payment in relation to which applicants are not privy and over which they have no control. As such, it remains appropriate for her to bear the burden of proof.
(2) The fact that an invalidity decision was not immediately challenged may be relevant in determining whether the legal burden, including an initial evidential burden requiring the Secretary of State to raise sufficient evidence to support her invalidity allegation, has been discharged.
(3) Whether the Secretary of State ultimately discharges the legal burden of proof will depend on the nature and quality of evidence she is able to provide, having regard to the timing of any request for payment details and the reasons for any delay, balanced against any rebuttal evidence produced by an appellant.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 53 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605706

SB (Afghanistan), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 16 Feb 2018

This case concerns the grant of urgent interlocutory injunctions against the Secretary of State in relation to the removal from the United Kingdom of an asylum-seeker whose claim for asylum she has rejected but where new representations are made on the asylum-seeker’s behalf at the eleventh hour, just before the removal.

Judges:

Lord Burnett LCJ, Sales, Flaux LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 215, [2018] WLR(D) 98

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605190

E C-240/17 – J: ECJ 16 Jan 2018

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Third-country national staying illegally in a Member State – Threat to public order and national security – Directive 2008/115/EC – Article 6(2) – Return decision – Ban on entry to the territory of the Member States – Alert for the purposes of refusing admission to the Schengen Area — Third-country national holding a valid residence permit issued by another Member State – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Article 25(2) – Consultation procedure between the Member State issuing the alert and the Member State which issued the residence permit – Time limit – Failure of the Contracting State consulted to adopt a position – Consequences for the enforcement of return decisions and entry ban

Citations:

[2018] EUECJ C-240/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – E C-240/17 – O ECJ 16-Jan-2018
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Asylum Policy – Justice and Home Affairs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605176

Sapkota, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 13 Nov 2017

Claim for damages for false imprisonment, arising from the Defendant’s decisions to curtail the Claimant’s leave to remain and to detain him in immigration detention.

Judges:

Dinah Rose QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2857 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.599419

Visa Joy Ltd and Another v Office of The Immigration Services Commissioner: CA 5 Oct 2017

When conducting an appeal from an administrative decision-maker, to what extent, if any, is a tribunal entitled to take account of matters that were not relied upon by the original decision-maker?

Judges:

McFarlane, Sharp LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1473

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.595950

E C-240/17 – O: ECJ 16 Jan 2018

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Asylum Policy – Justice and Home Affairs

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:8, [2018] EUECJ C-240/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – E C-240/17 – J ECJ 16-Jan-2018
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Third-country national staying illegally in a Member State – Threat to public order and national security – Directive 2008/115/EC – Article 6(2) – Return decision – Ban on entry to the territory of the Member . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604675

El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych: ECJ 13 Dec 2017

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Community Visa Code – Decision To Refuse A Visa : Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 – Article 32(3) – Community Visa Code – Decision to refuse a visa – Right of the applicant to bring an appeal against that decision – Obligation of a Member State to guarantee the right to a judicial appeal

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:960, [2017] EUECJ C-403/16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 32(3)

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602082