| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
House of Lords Judgments , House of Lords judgments AA ( AH ( Court of Appeals Judgments( Bailii), BAILII - British and Irish Legal Information Institute Country Guidance Cases. Country Guidance cases, Click here.
EUR-Lex ,Judgments European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance
SIAC Cases.
MW (Liberia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department A foreign national child of parents or a relative present and settled in the UK was not entitled to enter unless he would be maintained, without recourse to public funds, by the parent or relative he was seeking to join, not third parties In Hwez & Khadir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1597 (Admin). Orders were made that the matters should be remitted back to the Secretary of State for consideration forthwith to the grant of exceptional leave to enter. New Article 8 cases ILPA information sheet about the above cases Article 8 judgments UK Border Agency , Article 8 HRA Representations, Consideration under Article 8 of the HRA, Border Force Operations Manualr Delay Cases HB ( Madan & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 770 ( S ( Afganistan) [2007] EWCA Civ 54 Important Court of Appeal judgment may help if you claimed asylum ...- http://www.ncadc.org.uk/before2001.html WM (Democratic AR ( Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Kashmiri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Akaeke [2005] EWCA Civ 947 the delay of itself was capable of establishing that a decision to return in the context of Article 8 might be disproportionate even if the delay had caused the applicant no prejudice. YL ( Rely on SEF )
Tozlukaya (Mehmet) (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006) 11/04/2006, Risk of suicide, Unfounded claim, Prolonged stay, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights NM ( http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/214.rtf MW (National passport re-availment of protection) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2004/00136.rtf
AB (witness Corroboration in asylum appeals) Somalia 2004 UKIAT 00125
R(Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323 at [24], where Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: "while the Strasbourg jurisprudence does not preclude reliance on articles other than Article 3 as a ground for resisting extradition or expulsion, it makes it quite clear that successful reliance demands presentation of a very strong case… Where reliance is placed on Article 6, it must be shown that a person has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the receiving state." "It can be regarded as settled law that where there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice in the country to which an individual is to be deported, Article 6 may be engaged."
Court held: by 11 votes to six, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 2 (right to be informed promptly of reasons for arrest). MRS JUSTICE COX DBE stated at HSMP Forum (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 711 : " I conclude, therefore, that it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene." Meki Elgafaji, Noor Elgafaji Case Number: Case C-465/07 Date: 17/02/2009 The degree of indiscriminate violence in the applicant’s country of origin can exceptionally suffice for the competent authorities to decide that a civilian, if returned to his country of origin, would face a real risk of being subject to serious and individual threat. Hussain (Zakir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; [2009] EWCA Civ 8; [2009] WLR (D) 10 The practical question for an immigration judge deciding whether to grant indefinite leave to remain under r 276B of the Immigration Rules on the basis of long residence to an applicant who was unlawfully in the United Kingdom was whether, despite his evasion of immigration controls, there were any reasons in the public interest why the applicant should not be allowed to stay. His long evasion of immigration controls was not in itself a reason.Source: www.lawreports.co.uk VW (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; AB (Somalia) v Same [2009] EWCA Civ 5; [2009] WLR (D) 7 If removal from, or refusal of admission to, the United Kingdom pursuant to lawful immigration controls were to be held a disproportionate interference with private or family life under art 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms it would be necessary to show more than mere hardship, mere difficulty or mere obstacle: there was a seriousness test which required obstacles or difficulties to go beyond matters of choice or inconvenience.Source: www.lawreports.co.uk AM (Ethiopia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer [2008] EWCA Civ 1082; [2008] WLR (D) 329 EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AF and others intervening) [2008] UKHL 64; [2008] WLR (D) 00; [2008] WLR (D) 325 CL (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; [2008] WLR (D) 381 When construing s 8(1) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, which provided various factors that the court should take account of in assessing the credibility of an asylum seeker, the qualifying word “potentially” should be read into an explanatory clause which would then read: “as (potentially) damaging the claimant’s credibility”.Source: www.lawreports.co.uk Bulale v Secretary of State for the Home Department.[2008] EWCA Civ 808; [2008] WLR (D) 238 The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction, in very particular circumstances, to pursue a point of general importance in an immigration case not raised below once it occurred to the court, in order to ensure the state’s compliance with its international obligations. Where the point involved whether a propensity to commit robberies constituted a serious threat to society, it was for each member state to decide what sufficed to make threatened future criminal conduct serious enough to justify expulsion of an EEA national who had a right to reside in the United Kingdom.Source: www.lawreports.co.uk R (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 464; [2008] WLR (D) 150 The scope of the deeming provision in Sch 3, Pt 2, para 3(2) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, which required states listed in Sch 2, Pt 2, para 2 of the Act to be treated as countries safe for a person to be returned, was limited to the actual process of executive decision or adjudication of whether a person’s removal would contravene his rights under art 3 of the Human Rights Convention. It did not preclude a more general consideration of whether a listed state’s laws and practices were Convention compliant, therefore the list system was not incompatible with art 3 of the Convention.Source: www.lawreports.co.uk The Queen (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for Health (Defendant) & West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust (Interested Party) [2008] EWHC 855) If the refused asylum seeker is denied registration because of their immigration status, they should give the staff member the letter from the Department of Health. The letter can be found on the Department of Health website at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Dearcolleagueletters/DH_084479 Although the decisions of an expert tribunal established by Parliament should be fully respected, if its decisions to enforce deportation orders were to inflict indignity and constitute humanitarian disrespect on claimants seeking permission to remain in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal would use its supervisory function to revisit those decisions as constituting an error of law.Source: www.lawreports.co.uk There has been a very interesting judgment that has just come out of the High Court that has held to be unlawful the policy of a blanket denial of right to work for those caught in the legacy cases. The case is called Tekle v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 3064 (Admin). TheA THREE-MEMBER panel of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has promulgated a case called RN (Zimbabwe). RN has been designated the latest Zimbabwean Country Guidance case...Landmark AIT Ruling for Zim Asylum Seekers In a recent Court of Appeal case (GO and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1 July 2008), Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Moses delivered a judgement which will have significant consequences for Colleges and Universities, as well overseas students who are refused Further Leave to Remain after changing courses...http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/ Britain’s highest appeals court is scheduled to decide this week whether a divorced woman and her son should be deported to Lebanon, where she claims her abusive husband will gain custody under Sharia law. The case will address the issue of Islamic law and the extent to which Britain is obliged to provide asylum to those wishing to flee countries that practice it...Immigration Watchdog » UK Court to Rule on Islamic Law Case AB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department “A spouse who had married an overseas overstayer was entitled to have his right to a family life to be taken into account, although he was not a formal party to the proceedings seeking the removal of the overstayer.” In an article 8 case, the ultimate question for the appellate immigration ... the increasing role of human rights law in making immigration decisions. ...Human Rights Update - Article The immigration appellate authority must have regard to the valuable Strasbourg jurisprudence under Article 8. The main importance of the case law is in ... Home Office frivolous attitude to Article 8 'the right to family ... In FH & Ors v SSHD [2007] EWHC 1571 (Admin), the High Court decided that the delay caused in legacy cases is not generally unlawful. That judgment is available at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/1571.html Refugee council Hero Gurkhas today began their toughest battle by launching a ground-breaking immigration case which could give 2,000 of them the right to live in Britain permanently...Gurkhas Fight For Right To Stay In UK R(A) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department “The Secretary of State had not acted unlawfully in continuing to detain pending removal a failed asylum seeker who, having served a sentence of imprisonment for rape, was considered to be a risk to the public and highly likely to abscond. The period of detention was not unreasonable in the circumstances and where the detainee had refused to return voluntarily and no means were available for his enforced return.” WLR Daily, 30th July 2007 : www.lawreports.co.uk
AST/07/06/15489,24/07/2007 AST/07/07/15573,24/07/2007 Recent ASA decisions can be found here
1.
House of Lords.
Back to Top
2.
Court of Appeals.
Back to Top
3.
Back to Top
4.
AIT cases.
5.
EU. Court of Justice of the European Communities
Back to Top
6.
Back to Top
7.
Information.
Back to Top
8.
Featured Cases
Back to Top
9. ECHR..European Court of Human Rights
Back to Top
10.
Articles.
The principle that support or funding from a third party could not be relied on by a prospective entrant to the United Kingdom under r 297(v) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395), where the entrant was a child of a parent or a relative settled here, was applicable to r 281, where the entrant was a spouse or partner, and r 317, where he was a parent, grandparent or other dependent relative of the person settled here.Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
JT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 878; [2008] WLR (D) 260
It was held that individuals are entitled to free NHS secondary care and are entitled to register with a GP if they can establish that they are ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK.
AA (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 579; [2008] WLR (D) 170
Back to Top
12.
Recent ASA Decisions
Back to Top
| Site Map |