Tag: Immigration

MR (Permission To Appeal: Tribunal’s Approach): UTIAC 19 Jan 2015

(1) A judge considering an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal must avoid granting permission on what, properly analysed, is no more than a simple quarrel with the First-tier Tribunal judge’s assessment of the evidence.
(2) When granting permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, it is unsatisfactory merely to state that the applicant’s grounds are arguable.
(3) The requirement, emphasised in Nixon (permission to appeal: grounds) [2014] UKUT 368 (IAC), to engage with each and every ground of application, need not involve anything of an unduly elaborate, burdensome or analytical nature. The reasons for granting or refusing permission to appeal, in whole or part, in any given case will almost invariably be capable of being expressed in a concise and focused manner.

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 29 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.543181

AZ (Syria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 27 Jan 2017

AZ, a refugee, had been refused general travel document for reasons of national security. The Court as now asked whether he was entitled to be told of the concerns in advance of defendant’s decision.
Burnett LJ referred to a ‘sliding scale for the purposes of disclosure.’

Judges:

Jackson, Underhill, Burnett LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 35, [2017] 4 WLR 94, [2017] WLR(D) 48

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 41 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, European

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.573603

Vellore, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 8 Mar 2013

The claimant sought permission to review a decision of the defendant refusing to reconsider a decision to grant the claimant three years leave to remain and refusing to grant indefinite leave to remain. He seeks an order quashing that decision and a declaration that any reasonable exercise of the decision would have led to the grant of indefinite leave to remain.

Judges:

Jarman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 724 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491910

Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Dec 2017

The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under sections 40 and 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. The respondent had now asked that the appeals be allowed by consent.
Held: His reasons were largely been adopted by the Court.
The conflicting decisions had been difficult to reconcile and created uncertainty, and Akhtar and Bibi were overruled.
The Appellants were British citizens by naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 and that that citizenship remained valid unless and until a formal deprivation order is made pursuant to section 40(3) of the 1981 Act.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 82, [2018] 2 All ER 471, [2018] INLR 279, [2018] Imm AR 699, [2018] 1 WLR 221, UKSC 2016/0209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Nov-2015
Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sultan Mahmood CA 1978
The applicant appealed refusal of his writ of habeas corpus. He had been arrested pending removal to Pakistan. He said that he had been registered a British Citizen under the 1948 Act. Whilst in Pakistan he had substituted his own photograph for . .
Appeal from – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .
Overruled – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Parvaz Akhtar CA 1981
The applicant appealed refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. He was to be removed as an illegal immigrant. He had entered claiming to be registered as a British citizen but under somebody else’s identity.
Held: The Secretary of State had had no . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz CA 7-Dec-1993
The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British . .
Overruled – Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka CA 18-Jul-2007
The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.601874

Singh (Pargan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 10 Mar 1993

An issue arose as to whether the Secretary of State was required by section 18 of the Immigration Act 1981 to make regulations concerning the giving of notice of a decision for the purposes of appeal. if regulations were not made, the right of appeal conferred by the legislation could not have been exercised.
Held: Provisions for deemed service at the last known address of an applicant are intra vires. The Secretary of State had a duty to make such regulations. It would be assumed that Parliament intended that the person delegated with the relevant power should make regulations so as to activate the right in practice.
A duty to exercise a power would arise on a Minister where its exercise was necessary to give effect to rights created by Parliament.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘Sections 13 to 16 of the Act confer rights of appeal upon persons in relation to various actions and decisions affecting them, such as refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom, deportation orders and directions for removal. If those rights are to be effective the persons concerned must, where possible, be given such notice as will enable them to exercise those rights. In my view Parliament intended that the Secretary of State should be required to make regulations that would ensure, so far as practicable, that persons upon whom the rights of appeal had been conferred should be enabled effectively to exercise those rights. It follows that the Secretary of State does not have a discretion as to whether or not he shall make regulations.’
As to service: ‘Mr Mitchell’s argument that service on a person at his last known abode when he is known not to be there is Wednesbury unreasonable also fails. It is to be noted that the attack is not on the vires of regulation 6 but upon its exercise in the particular circumstances of this case. This argument necessarily involves construing ‘last known place of abode’ as meaning ‘last known place of abode at which there is reason to believe he might still be abiding.’ There is no warrant for such a construction. ‘Last known place of abode’ means exactly what it says, no more and no less. If it is known where a person was living but it is not known where he is now living, the former is his last known place of abode at which the regulation directs notice to be given. The formula is well known. For example, R.S.C., Ord. 10, r. 1(2)(a) provides for service of an originating process by posting to the defendant ‘at his usual or last known address.’ ‘

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1993, 1993 SC (HL) 1, [1992] 1 WLR 1052

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – RM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.89278

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz: CA 7 Dec 1993

The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British citizen.
Held: The Secretary was not entitled to treat her citizenship as a nullity. A registered or naturalised citizen is a British citizen and his Citizenship certificate remains valid until it is withdrawn under a s40 order.
Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘A person who has acquired British citizenship by registration or certificate of naturalisation can . . be deprived of his citizenship as a result of conduct that led to the grant of registration or naturalisation, or because of certain conduct thereafter. Subsequent conduct is dealt with in section 40(3) and consists of (a) disloyalty or disaffection to the Queen, (b) trading or communicating with the enemy in time of war or (c) imprisonment for twelve months or more within five years of the date when the person became a British citizen. We are not concerned with this subsection.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Independent 22-Dec-1993, Times 07-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 All ER 436, [1994] QB 496, [1994] 2 WLR 534

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naheed Ejaz QBD 23-Jul-1993
Using somebody else’s British passport, the applicant’s husband had masqueraded as a British citizen. The applicant had applied under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act for naturalisation as a British citizen on the ground that she was married to a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hicks, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Dec-2005
The claimant, an Australian, presently held by the US as a suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay sought to be registered as a British Citizen, saying he was entitled to registration as of right.
Held: The past behaviour of an applicant was not . .
Cited – Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.87984

Dilip Upreti and Others (Aps) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 4 Jun 2015

Application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal. The application is made by each of Dilip Upreti, his wife and two children. The Secretary of State for the Home Department appears as the respondent.

Judges:

Lord Brodie

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Immigration

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547653

Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 21 May 2010

The claimant challeged as unlawful the respondent’s policies as to expedited removals of persons from the United Kingdom.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1425 (Admin), [2010] ACD 70

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2010
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or . .
See Also – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Mar-2011
The defendant appealed against a decision allowing the claimant to apply for judicial review of its policy relating to the giving of notice of removal from the United Kingdom, and in particular, the alleged absence of any or sufficient notice to . .
Cited – Hussain, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 21-May-2020
No interim relief for Mosque Services
The claimant Chairman of a mosque challenged the Regulations in so far as they prohibited communal prayers. He now sought interim relief so as to allow Friday prayers. Social distancing was proposed, and a contrast was made with other activities . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.431931

SS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 15 Jun 2018

The court was asked whether, in cases heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) where the credibility of the appellant is in issue, there is a rule that a delay of more than three months between the hearing of oral evidence and the date of the FTT’s decision renders the decision unsafe.
Held: There is no such rule. In tribunal cases, as in court proceedings, excessive delay in making or promulgating a decision is not itself a reason for setting the decision aside. The correct approach is to ask whether the delay has caused the decision to be unsafe so that it would be unjust to let it stand. The only significance of the fact that delay between the hearing and the decision in an asylum case has exceeded three months is that, where the decision is challenged on an appeal, the Upper Tribunal should examine the FTT judge’s factual findings with particular care to ensure that the delay has not caused injustice to the appellant.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1391

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sambasivam v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 10-Nov-1999
Where an Immigration Appeal Tribunal heard a case and the judgment would depend upon an assessment of the applicant as to his credibility, a delay of three months between the hearing and the delivery of the judgment was too long. The impression made . .
Cited – Arab Bank Plc v John D Wood Commercial Ltd (In Liquidation) and others CA 25-Nov-1999
Having once recovered damages against a valuer for a negligent survey, there was nothing to stop a lender recovering also under a policy of insurance under a mortgage indemnity guarantee, and so the lender was not required to give credit for monies . .
Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Cited – Cobham v Frett PC 18-Dec-2000
(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or . .
Cited – British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited HL 1912
The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
Cited – London and South of England Building Society v Stone CA 1983
A claim was by lenders against negligent valuers after they failed to spot subsidence. They sought for the difference of pounds 11,880 between the amount advanced and the amount which would have been lent upon a proper valuation. The borrowers’ . .
Appeal from – SS (Sri Lanka), Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Feb-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.618390

Sambasivam v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 10 Nov 1999

Where an Immigration Appeal Tribunal heard a case and the judgment would depend upon an assessment of the applicant as to his credibility, a delay of three months between the hearing and the delivery of the judgment was too long. The impression made by the characters involved would have faded, and such a finding could not be supported, and the case merited a rehearing.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999, [2000] Imm AR 85, [2000] IMLR 105

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Jun-2018
The court was asked whether, in cases heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) where the credibility of the appellant is in issue, there is a rule that a delay of more than three months between the hearing of oral evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.88991

Syed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Apr 2013

The court was asked: did the professional level qualification of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) qualify or count as a qualification which entitled an applicant (if otherwise qualified) to leave to remain under the (now abolished) Tier 1 (Post – Study Work) Migrants route of the Points Based System in the Immigration Rules; or, if wider, under the relevant Home Office UKBA Policy Guidance document?
Held: No.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 984 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.473000

ES, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: Admn 27 Mar 2013

The claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s failure to assess her son’s needs for the purposes of providing accommodation and support under section 17 of the 1989 Act. While the case is specific to its particular facts, it raises the question of the extent to which the Defendant could rely upon the Secretary of State’s power to provide facilities for accommodation under section 4 of the 999 Act in deciding whether or not to carry out an assessment of need.

Judges:

Robin Purchas QC

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 691 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 4

Local Government, Children, Immigration

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472074

Das, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Mar 2013

Application for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State, acting by her officials, to authorise the detention of the Claimant on 7 November 2011 with a view to her removal from the United Kingdom and to maintain that detention until the Claimant was granted bail by an Immigration Judge and released from detention on 12 January 2012. The Claimant seeks a declaration that all or part of that period of detention was unlawful and claims damages for false imprisonment.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 682 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Immigration

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472038

Ibrahim, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 1 Mar 2013

The claimant sought asylum saying he had been tortured in Syria. He now appealed against the respondent’s decision to return him to Bulgaria where he had first fled.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 496 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471934

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Salem: HL 3 Mar 1999

The House of Lords has the power to hear a case where the parties have in effect settled and there remains no lis at issue, but the House will not hear such an academic case where no general issue of importance is at stake, or the facts are particular. There must be a good reason in the public interest for hearing such a case, and the House cited, as an example, a case: ‘where a discrete point of statutory construction arises which does not involve detailed consideration of facts and where a large number of similar cases exists or are anticipated so that the issue will most likely need to be resolved in the near future.’
Lord Slynn of Hadleigh said: ‘My Lords, I accept, as both counsel agree, that in a cause where there is an issue involving a public authority as to a question of public law, your Lordships have a discretion to hear the appeal, even if by the time the appeal reaches the House there is no longer a lis to be decided which will directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. The decisions in the Sun Life case and Ainsbury v Millington (and the reference to the latter in rule 42 of the Practice Directions applicable to Civil Appeals (January 1996) of your Lordships’ House) must be read accordingly as limited to disputes concerning private law rights between the parties to the case.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn and Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Times 12-Feb-1999, [1999] UKHL 8, [1999] 1 AC 450, [1999] 2 All ER 42, [1999] 2 WLR 483

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii, WLR

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

On appeal from – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
Cited – Ainsbury v Millington (Note) HL 1987
There had been a dispute between the parties as to a council house tenancy, but by the time it came before the House, the tenancy had ceased to exist, and the action was academic.
Held: Once the parties have settled their dispute there remains . .
Cited – Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v Jervis HL 1944
The parties had disputed the terms of an insurance policy. The House considered whether it could hear the case once the dispute had been settled.
Held: There was no remaining dispute for the House to settle. Viscount Simon LC said: ‘My Lords, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
Cited – Regina, (Ultraframe (UK) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee CA 22-Apr-2005
Two trade unions had sought recognition. Ballots had been held which almost secured recognition but fell a handful of votes short. The Unions criticised the way the ballots had been conducted, saying that a number of employees had not received . .
Cited – Harb v King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz and Another CA 9-Nov-2005
The wife sought to continue her claim for ancillary relief despite the death of her husband, the former King of Saudi Arabia.
Held: The court’s jurisdiction over the King had been challenged. However the claimants claim now abated on the death . .
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – AVS v A NHS Foundation Trust and Another CA 17-Jan-2011
The claimant contracted sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob’s Disease disease. He executed a Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of his brother, expressing to him that he should do whatever was possible to protract his life. The brother now sought treatment . .
Applied – Dolan and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another CA 1-Dec-2020
Lockdown Measures not Ultra Vires the 1984 Act
The appellants, a businessman, and mother, appealed from refusal of leave to challenge regulations made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic on 26 March 2020 and since which introduced what was commonly known as a ‘lockdown’ in England. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.85536

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 been deported to Jamaica, but returned with a forged passport which was detected on entry. The court had rejected his argument that he was a refugee entitled to protection after fleeing gangs in Jamaica.
Held: On the evidence before the jury, there was no possible basis for classifying the appellant as a refugee.

Judges:

Jackson LJ, Wyn Williams J, Beaumont QC HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 125, [2013] WLR(D) 22

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees made at Geneva in 1951, Identity Documents Act 2010 4, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
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 – Regina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471585

Bhavyesh and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jul 2012

Rolled up hearing for permission and, if permission be granted, the substantive hearing of a challenge to an amendment made in November 2010 to the Immigration Rules laid before Parliament by the respondent, Secretary of State. In essence, these claimants challenge those parts of the rules that require a person seeking entry clearance to join a spouse settled in the United Kingdom having to demonstrate an understanding of the English language and the British way of life subject to certain exceptions that are not material.
Held: Blake J said: ‘… members of such a class are the beneficiaries of a special legal regime, in a different position from either aliens or generally, or British citizens who fall altogether outside the scope of EU law. They are thus incapable of being a comparator class, or a group who are analogously situated with the claimants.’

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2789 (Admin)

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, European

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464958

Ewulo (Effect of Family Permit – OFM) Nigeria: UTIAC 13 Jul 2012

i) Where a family permit has been issued by an ECO after inquiry pursuant to regulation 12 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and is used to enter the United Kingdom a subsequent application for a residence card is to be determined under regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.
ii) Where the validity of the issue of the family permit is not contested by the Secretary of State and the permit has not been revoked, the issue is whether there has been a material change of circumstances since arrival with the consequence that the claimant no longer qualifies as an extended family member

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 238 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463332

Regina (on the Application of Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 25 Oct 2001

Judges:

Sir Christopher Bellamy QC

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 895

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Mar-2002
Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum . .
At First Instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.167250

Mirza and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 14 Dec 2016

In each case the applicant had sought to extend their leave to remain within the necessary time scale, but their applications had been defective. In one case the required biometric information had not been supplied, and in the other two the fees had not been paid.
Held: The appeals failed. The Regulations were explicit. If an application were not accompanied by the specified fee it was not validly made and, in ordinary language, an application which was not validly made could have no substantive effect: ‘There is no ambiguity in the words of regulation 37 of the 2011 Regulations. It provides in terms that if an application is not accompanied by the specified fee the application ‘is not validly made’. In ordinary language an application which is not validly made can have no substantive effect. There is nothing in the regulation to exclude section 3C from its scope.’

Judges:

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

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 63, [2017] INLR 325, [2017] 3 All ER 824, [2017] 1 WLR 85, [2016] WLR(D) 664, [2017] Imm AR 716, UKSC 2015/0209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, WLRD, SC Summary

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3C, Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 3 23, Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At IAT – IA016582005 (Unreported) AIT 19-Sep-2007
. .
At CA – JH (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Feb-2009
. .
Cited – Suthendran v Immigration Appeal Tribunal HL 1977
The Appellant had been given leave under section 3(1)(b) of the 1971 Act to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for 12 months. Before it expired, he applied for his leave to be varied by way of extension under section 3(3)(a) of the Act. The . .
Cited – Iqbal and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 30-Jul-2015
Three applicants had sought an extension of their leave to remain pending the determination of an application to vary the period of leave. In each case, the applications had been faulty, either for non-payment of fees, or failure to provide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.572399

Brown, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 28 May 2012

The claimant, a citizen of Jamaica, came to the UK in 2010 on a visitor’s visa with leave to remain for one month. He then applied for asylum on the ground that he is a Jamaican homosexual and feared persecution if returned to Jamaica. He was detained under section 62 of the Act pending a decision on his removal. The detention power was exercised under the so-called Detained Non Suspensive Appeals process. He complained that his case was not suitable for the DNSA process and his detention was unlawful. The complaint was rejected and he issued a claim for judicial review, seeking declarations that the decision to include Jamaica in the list of states designated under section 94(4) and the respondent’s detention were both unlawful. His claim for asylum was rejected, but not certifying it as clearly unfounded. He was free to pursue an in-country appeal, and the Tribunal upheld his claim to be a homosexual and at real risk of persecution if he were returned to Jamaica.
Held: The Court dismissed the appellant’s claim for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to include, and subsequently retain, Jamaica among the states designated in section 94(4) of the 2002 Act as generally not presenting any serious risk of persecution to those entitled to reside within them. By the same order the Deputy Judge dismissed the appellant’s claim for damages for false imprisonment in respect of the period during which he was detained pending the determination of his claim for asylum.

Judges:

Nicholas Paine QC DHCJ

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1660 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(4)

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali CA 17-May-2001
A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – JB (Jamaica), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2013
The claimant was to be removed and returned to Jamaica, but claimed that as a homosexual he would be persecuted. He now challenged the inclusion of Jamaica within the last of safe countries.
Held: (Moore-Bick LJ dissenting) The appeal . .
At First Instance – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461872

Kastrati And Others (Right of Asylum): ECJ 12 Jan 2012

ECJ Right of asylum – Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application – Entry by means of a Schengen visa – Lodging of an asylum application in a Member State which did not issue the Schengen visa – Application for a residence permit in the State of residence – Withdrawal of the asylum application – Admission of the asylum seeker by the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application

Judges:

Trstnjak AG

Citations:

C-620/10, [2012] EUECJ C-620/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Kastrati And Others (Right of Asylum) ECJ 3-May-2012
ECJ Dublin system – Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 – Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application – Third-country nationals in possession of a valid visa issued by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.459562

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 overstaying.

Citations:

Independent 23-Feb-1996, Gazette 20-Mar-1996, Times 27-Feb-1996, (1996) 28 HLR 616

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 63 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – 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. . .
Cited – London Borough of Barnet v Ismail and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
The court considered the entitlement to housing support of nationals of other EEA states receiving Income Support here despite their being still subject to immigration control.
Held: Such EEA nationals were eligible for housing benefit. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.88300

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Vitale: CA 26 Jan 1996

The appellant, who was an Italian citizen, claimed that Article 8(a) conferred an unlimited right to reside in the United Kingdom.
Held: The court rejected that argument. Staughton LJ said that it was clear that Article 8(a) could not be taken to have replaced Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366: ‘Each of these directives was a measure adopted to give effect to the Treaty, and each of them contained the limitation on the right of residence that the visiting national should not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state. The right of residence conferred by art 8a is, therefore, in our view, still subject to that limitation. As for the submission that all nationals now have a general right of residence by virtue of art 8a, this seems to us to ignore the plain words that the art 8a right of residence is made subject to the limitations and conditions contained in measures such as these directives. In our judgment, there is at the moment no unqualified right of residence of the kind claimed by the appellant.’ Freedom of movement for workers in EU depended on intention to work- economic.

Judges:

Staughton LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-1996, [1996] All ER (EC) 461

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Vitale; Regina v Same Ex Parte Do Amaral QBD 18-Apr-1995
A European Union citizen’s right to stay in UK is not unqualified, he must expect to have to seek or find work. The decision of the Home Secretary could be judicially reviewed and ‘in the course of his appeal before the Social Security Appeal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 3-May-2006
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen.
Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, European

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.87918