Tag: Immigration

Smith (Paragraph 391(A) – Revocation of Deportation Order : Jamaica): UTIAC 17 Mar 2017

(i) In cases involving convictions for an offence for which the person was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 4 years, the Secretary of State’s policy, as expressed in paragraph 391(a) of the Immigration Rules, is that the public interest does not require continuation of a deportation order after a period of ten years has elapsed.
(ii) However, paragraph 391(a) allows the Secretary of State to consider on a case by case basis whether a deportation order should be maintained. The mere fact of past convictions is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain an order if the ‘prescribed period’ has elapsed. Strong public policy reasons would be needed to justify continuing an order in such circumstances.
(iii) Paragraph 391(a) will only be engaged in a ‘post-deportation’ case if the person is applying for revocation of the order from outside the UK. Nothing in the strict wording of the rule requires the ten-year period to be spent outside the UK. However, the main purpose of deportation is to exclude a person from the UK. Any breach of the deportation order is likely to be a strong public policy ground for maintaining the order even though a period of ten years has elapsed since it was made.
(iv) In ‘post-deportation’ applications involving sentences of less than four years made before the end of the ten-year period, and ‘post-deportation’ applications involving sentences of four years or more, appropriate weight should be given to the Secretary of State’s policy as expressed in the ‘Conventions exception’ and ‘sweep-up exception’ with reference to paragraphs 398-399A and 390A of the Immigration Rules.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 166 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.588798

Ao and Am, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Stay of Proceedings – Principles): UTIAC 28 Mar 2017

(i) The Upper Tribunal has the same power as the High Court to stay proceedings.
(ii) The most important factors influencing the exercise of this discretionary power will normally be found in the overriding objective.
(iii) Great caution is required where a stay application is founded on the contention that the outcome of another case will significantly influence the outcome of the instant case.
(iv) A stay application will require especially compelling justification in a case qualifying for urgent judicial decision.
(v) The cases of unaccompanied, isolated teenagers marooned in a foreign land suffering from major psychological trauma and seeking, via litigation, the swiftest reunion possible with a separated family member will always, in principle, have a powerful claim to judicial prioritisation.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 168 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.588793

PP (Female Headed Household; Expert Duties) Sri Lanka: UTIAC 6 Feb 2017

(I) A Tamil female single head of household residing in the former conflict zone of Northern and North Eastern Sri Lanka may be at risk of sexual abuse and exploitation perpetrated by members of police, military and paramilitary State agents.
(II) The existence and measurement of this risk will be an intensely fact sensitive question in every case. The case-by-case assessment will be informed by the presence or absence of positive risk factors and decreasing risk factors .
(III) The positive risk factors are living in isolation from others, low socio-economic status, dependence upon the distribution of Government aid or the provision of other services by the security forces and a perception of former LTTE membership, links or sympathies. These positive factors do not necessarily have to be satisfied cumulatively in every case: context will invariably be everything.
(IV) The countervailing factors are higher socio-economic status, little dependence on Government aid or services and the support of male relatives or neighbours. The context of the particular case will dictate the force and weight of each of these factors, individually or cumulatively, in any given case. These too will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
(V) Experts’ reports and evidence must comply fully and strictly with the Senior President of Tribunal’s Practice Direction.
(VI) The methodology of every expert witness should always be patent on the face of the report. If not, it should be provided via a supplement, accompanied by a full and frank explanation of the omission. Experts and practitioners are reminded of the decisions of the Upper Tribunal in MOJ and Others [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC), at [23] – [38] and MS (Trafficking – Tribunal’s powers – Article 4 ECHR) Pakistan [2016] UKUT 226 (IAC), at [68] – [69].

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 117 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.588791

M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General: ECJ 9 Feb 2017

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees – Application for subsidiary protection – Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status – Right to be heard – Scope – Right to an interview – Right to call and cross-examine witnesses

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:101, [2017] EUECJ C-560/14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/83/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573938

Connell, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 2 Feb 2017

The Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant’s decision not to deport him to Ireland as a foreign criminal.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 100 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 75

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573924

Aitjilal, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (EEA Regulations – Deportation – Reassessment – Regulation 24): UTIAC 9 Dec 2016

UTIAC Neither a decision to make a deportation order nor a notice of intention to make a deportation order triggers the two year period specified in regulation 24(5) of the EEA Regulations. The two year period begins upon the making of the deportation order itself.

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 563 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573727

JA (Child – Risk of Persecution : Nigeria): UTIAC 24 Nov 2016

UTIAc A child can be at risk of persecutory harm contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in circumstances where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk.

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 560 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573725

SA and Aa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Dublin – Article 8 ECHR – Interim Relief) (IJR): UTIAC 12 Oct 2016

UTIAC (i) By virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeal in ZAT and Others the duty to admit a person to the United Kingdom under Article 8 ECHR without adherence to the initial procedural requirements of the Dublin Regulation requires an especially compelling case.
(ii) The question of whether the best interests of a child will be promoted by delay is an intensely fact sensitive one.
(iii) The grant of interim relief can be formulated in such a way as to respect the role and responsibilities of the relevant authorities of a foreign state.
(iv) Protection of the best interests of a child should not be outweighed by considerations of judicial comity.

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 507 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573723

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Akbar: CA 19 Jan 2017

The Secretary of State appealed against dismissal of a civil penalty imposed for alleged employment of illegal workers, seeking first clarification of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to consider such an appeal.

Judges:

Arden, McFarlane LJJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 16, [2017] WLR(D) 30

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Employment

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573619

DZ (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 19 Jan 2017

Appeal against rejection of claim for unlawful immigration detention.

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, David Richards LJJ, Sir Stephen Tomlinson

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573607

Kaur (Children’s Best Interests / Public Interest Interface): UTIAC 10 Jan 2017

UTIAC (1) The seventh of the principles in the Zoumbas code does not preclude an outcome whereby the best interests of a child must yield to the public interest.
(2) This approach has not been altered by Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
(3) In the proportionality balancing exercise, the best interests of a child must be assessed in isolation from other factors, such as parental misconduct.
(4) The best interests assessment should normally be carried out at the beginning of the balancing exercise.
(5) The ‘little weight’ provisions in Part 5A of the 2002 Act do not entail an absolute, rigid measurement or concept; ‘little weight’ involves a spectrum which, within its self-contained boundaries, will result in the measurement of the quantum of weight considered appropriate in the fact sensitive context of every case.
(6) In every balancing exercise, the scales must be properly prepared by the Judge, followed by all necessary findings and conclusions, buttressed by adequate reasoning.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 14 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 5A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573289

Treebhawon and Others (NIAA 2002 Part 5A – Compelling Circumstances Test : Mauritius): UTIAC 9 Jan 2017

UTIAC (I) Where the case of a foreign national who is not an offender does not satisfy the requirements of the Article 8 ECHR regime of the Immigration Rules, the test to be applied is that of compelling circumstances.
(II) The Parliamentary intention underlying Part 5A of NIAA 2002 is to give proper effect to Article 8 ECHR. Thus a private life developed or established during periods of unlawful or precarious residence might conceivably qualify to be accorded more than little weight and s 117B (4) and (5) are to be construed and applied accordingly.
(III) Mere hardship, mere difficulty, mere hurdles, mere upheaval and mere inconvenience, even where multiplied, are unlikely to satisfy the test of ‘very significant hurdles’ in paragraph 276 ADE of the Immigration Rules.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 13 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573292

Chin and Another (Former BOC/Malaysian National – Deportation : Malaysia): UTIAC 11 Jan 2017

UTIAC The deportation of a former Malaysian national and former BOC is liable to be deemed unlawful where relevant Government Policies relating to inter-state arrangements with Malaysia have not been taken into account or given effect.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 15 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573288

VA (Solicitor’s Non-Compliance: Counsel’s Duties : Sri Lanka): UTIAC 5 Jan 2017

UTIAC (i) Counsel’s duty is owed to the client. It does not extend to defending non-compliant instructing solicitors.
(ii) It is for non-compliant instructing solicitors to defend themselves by proactively arranging their attendance before the tribunal in appropriate circumstances.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 12 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Legal Professions

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573293

Lama (Video Recorded Evidence – Weight – Art 8 ECHRr): UTIAC 13 Jan 2017

UTIAC (i) Video recorded evidence from witnesses is admissible in the Upper Tribunal. Its weight will vary according to the context.
(ii) Alertness among practitioners and parties to the Upper Tribunal’s standard pre-hearing Directions and compliance therewith are crucial.
(iii) There are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes family life within the compass of Article 8 ECHR.
(iv) A person’s value to the community is a factor which may legitimately be considered in the Article 8 proportionality balancing exercise.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 16 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573290

Lauzikas v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Dec 2016

The claimant, an EU citizen, challenged the Home Secretary’s service upon him of a notice preventing him from working in the United Kingdom while he was on bail awaiting the resolution of an earlier claim for judicial review and determination of his appeal against a decision by the Home Secretary to deport him.
Held: The claim for judicial review was refused.

Thirlwall DBE J
[2016] EWHC 3215 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 681
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572719

Yadly Marketing Company Ltd v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 23 Nov 2016

Appeal against rejection of appeal against civil penalty as out of time.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The appellant had attempted to file the appeal, on the day after a bank holiday, but the attempt had been rejected, wrongly, by the court clerk.

Arden, Beatson, Henderson LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1143, [2016] WLR(D) 621
Bailii, WLRD
Immigration and Nationality Act 2006 17
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571945

K and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Defence and Another: CA 23 Nov 2016

The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims that they had acted as covert intelligence sources for the British Army in Afghanistan, and should have been given support and assistance accordingly.

Longmore, Treacy, Underhill LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1149, [2016] WLR(D) 625
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Human Rights, Armed Forces, Immigration

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571937

S and J, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Haringey: Admn 28 Oct 2016

Application for judicial review of a decision by the London Borough of Haringey that the Claimants were not children in need for the purposes of Part III of the Children Act 1989

Neil Cameron QC
[2016] EWHC 2692 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children, Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570551

Ghulam and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 24 Oct 2016

Three conjoined claims for judicial review challenging decisions by the Secretary of State setting the level of weekly support payments to asylum seekers pursuant to sections 95 to 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Flaux J
[2016] EWHC 2639 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570547

HD (Trafficked Women) Nigeria (CG): UTIAC 17 Oct 2016

UTIAC 1. The guidance set out in PO (trafficked women) Nigeria [2009] UKAIT 00046 at paragraphs 191-192 should no longer be followed.
2. Although the Government of Nigeria recognises that the trafficking of women, both internally and transnationally, is a significant problem to be addressed, it is not established by the evidence that for women in general in Nigeria there is a real risk of being trafficked.
3. For a woman returning to Nigeria, after having been trafficked to the United Kingdom, there is in general no real risk of retribution or of being trafficked afresh by her original traffickers.
4. Whether a woman returning to Nigeria having previously been trafficked to the United Kingdom faces on return a real risk of being trafficked afresh will require a detailed assessment of her particular and individual characteristics. Factors that will indicate an enhanced risk of being trafficked include, but are not limited to:
a. The absence of a supportive family willing to take her back into the family unit;
b. Visible or discernible characteristics of vulnerability, such as having no social support network to assist her, no or little education or vocational skills, mental health conditions, which may well have been caused by experiences of abuse when originally trafficked, material and financial deprivation such as to mean that she will be living in poverty or in conditions of destitution;
c. The fact that a woman was previously trafficked is likely to mean that she was then identified by the traffickers as someone disclosing characteristics of vulnerability such as to give rise to a real risk of being trafficked. On returning to Nigeria, it is probable that those characteristics of vulnerability will be enhanced further in the absence of factors that suggest otherwise.
Factors that indicate a lower risk of being trafficked include, but are not limited to:
a. The availability of a supportive family willing to take the woman back into the family unit;
b. The fact that the woman has acquired skills and experiences since leaving Nigeria that better equip her to have access to a livelihood on return to Nigeria, thus enabling her to provide for herself.
6. There will be little risk of being trafficked if received into a NAPTIP shelter or a shelter provided by an NGO for the time that she is there, but that support is likely to be temporary, possibly for just a few weeks, and there will need to be a careful assessment of the position of the woman when she leaves the shelter.

7. For a woman who does face a real risk of being trafficked if she returns to her home area, the question of whether internal relocation will be available as a safe and reasonable alternative that will not be unduly harsh will require a detailed assessment of her particular circumstances. For a woman who discloses the characteristics of vulnerability described above that are indicative of a real risk of being trafficked, internal relocation is unlikely to be a viable alternative.

[2016] UKUT 454 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570468

MW (Nationality; Art 4 Qd; Duty To Substantiate): UTIAC 3 Oct 2016

UTIAC 1. Article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive does not impose a shared duty of cooperation on the Member State to substantiate an applicant’s nationality.
2. Article 4(2) refers to documentation (including documentation regarding nationality(ies)) ‘at the applicant’s disposal’ – which must include documentation which is not in the applicant’s present possession but is within his or her power to obtain.
3. The terms of Article 4(3) are consistent with the position that an applicant who denies he is a national of a country where he could obtain protection can be expected to take reasonable steps to establish that he is not such a national.

[2016] UKUT 453 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570470

Al-Sirri (Asylum – Exclusion – Article 1F(C)) Egypt: UTIAC 17 Aug 2016

UTIAC In every case involving exclusion of protection under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention, the onus of proof is on the Secretary of State, a detailed and individualised examination of the facts is required, there must be clear and credible evidence of the offending conduct, and the overall evaluative judgment involves the application of a standard higher than suspicion or belief.

[2016] UKUT 448 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570458

Restivo (EEA – Prisoner Transfer) Italy: UTIAC 9 Sep 2016

UTIAC The European Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA has replaced the framework previously set out in the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, itself supplemented by the Protocol of 18 December 1997, to provide the framework within which a request may be made to another Member State for the transfer of an EEA national sentenced in the United Kingdom to serve that sentence in his own country. In the United Kingdom context, it is a precondition for making a transfer request that there be in place a deportation order. A decision to make a deportation order is not a decision to transfer a serving prisoner to another Member State to serve his prison there and so in any appeal against a decision to make a deportation order the Tribunal is not concerned with whether there is any legal impediment to such a transfer taking place.
Where the personal conduct of a person represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, the fact that such threat is managed while that person serves his or her prison sentence is not itself material to the assessment of the threat he or she poses. The threat exists, whether or not it cannot generate further offending simply because the person concerned, being imprisoned, has significantly less opportunity to commit further criminal offences.

[2016] UKUT 449 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, European

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570466

FA (Libya: Art 15(C) Libya (CG): UTIAC 7 Sep 2016

UTIAC 1. The question of whether a person is at art 15(c) risk in Libya should, until further Country Guidance, be determined on the basis of the individual evidence in the case.
2. This decision replaces AT and Others Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) in respect of assessment of the art 15(c) risk.

[2016] UKUT 413 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570463

MA (ETS – TOEIC Testing) Nigeria: UTIAC 16 Sep 2016

UTIAC (i) The question of whether a person engaged in fraud in procuring a TOEIC English language proficiency qualification will invariably be intrinsically fact sensitive.
(ii) Per curiam: where the voice data generated by TOEIC testing are those of a person other than the person claiming to have undergone the tests, there is no breach of EU or UK data protection laws.

[2016] UKUT 450 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570465

Hassan and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Dublin – Malta; EU Charter Art 18) (IJR): UTIAC 28 Sep 2016

UTIAC (i) There have been significant developments in Malta during recent years. While there may be imperfections in the Maltese asylum decision making processes, these are not sufficient to preclude returns under the Dublin Regulation and, in particular, do not amount to a breach of Article 18 of the EU Charter.
(ii) While Article 18 of the EU Charter confers rights of a procedural nature, the evidence does not establish that these will be infringed in the event of either of the Applicants pursuing a fresh asylum claim in Malta.
(iii) The limitations of the mechanisms available under Maltese law for challenging refusal of asylum decisions do not infringe Article 18 of the EU Charter.
(iv) In judicial review, decisions of the Administrative Court are not binding on the Upper Tribunal: Secretary of State for Justice v RB [2010] UKUT 454 (AAC) applied.
(v) Per curiam : Article 18 of the EU Charter provides an avenue for challenging transfer decisions under the Dublin Regulation.
(vi) Per curiam : Where a Dublin Regulation transfer decision is challenged under Article 18 of the EU Charter, the ECHR ‘flagrant breach’ standard does not apply. Rather, the test is whether there is a real risk of a breach of Article 18.

[2016] UKUT 452 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570464

AB (British Citizenship: Deprivation; Deliallisi Considered) Nigeria: UTIAC 28 Sep 2016

UTIAC (1) As held in Deliallisi (British citizen: deprivation appeal: scope) [2013] UKUT 439 (IAC), in an appeal under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 the Tribunal is required to determine the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation.
(2) Whilst the Tribunal considering a section 40A appeal cannot pre-judge the outcome of any future legal challenge that the appellant might bring against a decision to remove, following deprivation, the Tribunal must nevertheless take a view as to whether, from its present vantage point, there is likely to be force in any future challenge: cf section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and paragraph 353 of the immigration rules. The stronger the potential case, the less likely it will be that the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation will include removal.
(3) A person who had indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, immediately before acquiring British citizenship, does not thereby become entitled to indefinite leave to remain, upon being deprived of such citizenship under section 40 of the 1981 Act. Leave to remain is effectively extinguished by becoming a British citizen, since the system of controls under the Immigration Act 1971 does not apply to British citizens.
(4) In a section 40A appeal, an appellant may rely on the ground that deprivation would have a disproportionate effect, as regards the rights flowing from citizenship of the EU, only if, on the facts, there is a ‘cross-border’ element. The finding to the contrary in Deliallisi was reached per incuriam in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in G1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 867.

[2016] UKUT 451 (IAC)
Bailii
British Nationality Act 1981 40A
England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570462

Danqua v Minister For Justice And Equality Ireland: ECJ 20 Oct 2016

ECJ Refugee Status : Subsidiary Protection Status : Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status – National procedural rule laying down, for the submission of an application for subsidiary protection, a period of 15 working days from notification of the rejection of the application for asylum – Procedural autonomy of the Member States – Principle of equivalence – Principle of effectiveness – Proper conduct of the procedure for examining the application for subsidiary protection – Proper conduct of the return procedure – Not compatible

ECLI:EU:C:2016:789, [2016] EUECJ C-429/15
Bailii
Directive 2004/83/EC
European

Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570369

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v AJ (Zimbabwe): CA 20 Oct 2016

The court heard appeals with regard to two foreign criminals sentenced to between 12 months’ and four years’ imprisonment for criminal offences and then made subject to a deportation order by the Secretary of State; in each case the deportee successfully appealed on article 8 ECHR grounds to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT); in each case the principal basis of the FTT decision was that deportation would be a disproportionate interference with family life because it would have a significant detrimental effect upon the children of the deported criminal which outweighed the very powerful public interest in deporting foreign criminals and constituted ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of rule 398 of the Immigration Rules; and in each case a further appeal by the Secretary of State to the Upper Tribunal (UT) failed on the grounds that the decision reached by the FTT displayed no misdirection in law and was an assessment which it could legitimately reach on the evidence.

Elias, Vos LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1012
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570178

Paoletti And Others: ECJ 6 Oct 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 6 TEU – Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law – Italian nationals having organised the illegal entry into Italy of Romanian nationals – Acts carried out before the accession of Romania to the European Union – Effect of Romania’s accession on the criminal offence of facilitation of illegal immigration – Implementation of EU law – Jurisdiction of the Court

ECLI:EU:C:2016:748, [2016] EUECJ C-218/15
Bailii
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 49, TEU 6
European

Human Rights, Crime, Immigration

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570141

Samba Diouf v Minister of Labour, Employment and Immigration: ECJ 28 Jul 2011

ECJ Directive 2005/85/EC – Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status – ‘Decision taken on [the] application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 – Application by a third country national for refugee status – Failure to provide reasons justifying the grant of international protection – Application rejected under an accelerated procedure – No remedy against the decision to deal with the application under an accelerated procedure – Right to effective judicial review
The Procedures Directive lays down minimum standards. Article 39 requires Member States to ensure that applicants have the right to ‘an effective remedy’, not that they should have the most effective remedy.

[2011] EUECJ C-69/10, [2012] 1 CMLR 8, ECLI:EU:C:2011:524
Bailii
Directive 2005/85/EC
Citing:
Opinion – Samba Diouf v Minister of Labour, Employment and Immigration ECJ 1-Mar-2011
ECJ (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) Request by a citizen of a country seeking refugee status – Rejection of this request, as part of a national process accelerated in the absence of reasons justifying the . .

Cited by:
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Immigration

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567850