Exécution_de_Marie_Antoinette_le_16_octobre_1793

The Home Office have updated their Chapter 13 Immigration Directorate Instruction guidance on deportation cases. It makes interesting reading for anyone interested in immigration law or human rights but it is essential reading for lawyers representing people in deportation cases. It not only gives insight into the approach of the Home Office, it also tells us about the evidence that is necessary in deportation cases in order to avoid an appeal where people do meet the stringent rules.

It discloses some interesting possible arguments about the scheme of the statutory considerations on human rights and includes some really quite astonishing propositions even by Home Office standards.

The full version of this post consists of summary, analysis and commentary and is currently only available to signed in Free Movement Members with access to the CPD training materials. The material has also already been added to the course on Article 8, the Immigration Act and the Immigration Rules.

Continue Reading…

No Borders, by Carrie on 1000 Blackbirds

For supporters of the No Borders movement, it is an article of faith that borders are an unnecessary interference with human freedom and human nature. Borders by their nature separate people, break up families, hold back economic and cultural development and discriminate between otherwise equal humans on the basis of artificial nationality laws. These fake frontiers and their checkpoints are intended to discourage free movement, marking like scent the territory of a particular set of politicians.

Continue Reading…

Sunken boat

Given my experience on the float list at Hatton Cross this week, this successful complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman makes very interesting reading. An award of £3,600 plus interest for legal costs and £100 for inconvenience was made to a lady whose hearing was cancelled the day before by the court. Waiting around all day only for it later to be cancelled is surely worse, particularly if a load of witnesses and supporters are also put to the same inconvenience?

Also interesting is the prospect of successful compensation from the Home Office where a decision is withdrawn at the last minute but the evidence was served in good time in compliance with directions or where the withdrawal does not relate to new evidence but some other error, such as considering the case under the wrong rule. I have in the past and continue to strongly recommend a complaint to the Ombudsman in these circumstances. The process is explained here. It is necessary to complain to the public authority concerned first and then get the complaint referred to the Ombudsman through a Member of Parliament.

Full text of complaint outcome below for convenience. Continue Reading…

By coffee bee, on Flickr

Irreversible harm

Mark Symes —  — 13 Comments

From 28 July 2014, the commencement of provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 gives the Secretary of State new powers of certification that will oust “in-country” rights of appeal for foreign criminals. She may do so in any case where she thinks removal would be consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular where there is no real risk of serious irreversible harm faced by the deportee (section 94B of the amended Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002).

Continue Reading…

by SAM Nasim

Kent Law Clinic has published a new report, How Children Become Failed Asylum Seekers, which needs to be read by anyone representing children in asylum cases. Taking the files of 25 “failed asylum seekers” who had arrived in Kent as children, they reviewed the decision making process of the Home Office, the legal representation and the Tribunal’s consideration of any appeal in each case, as well as seeking to identify any further legal action which could be taken.

The research team found that the majority of the young people had been refused on credibility or plausibility grounds, but that many of those findings arose out of processes which have now been disallowed. Continue Reading…

Float list

Want to know what it was like stuck on the float list at Hatton Cross today? Read Emily Dugan’s excellent write up in The Independent. We weren’t the only ones. Several cases were adjourned off to future dates, including cases in which my Garden Court colleagues Taimour Lay and Peter Jorro were instructed. Huge waste of time and very expensive for our privately paying clients.

UPDATE: see also Grey and hopeless: The grim reality of immigration tribunals by Ian Dunt, who was also with us.

Scythe being sharpened

The most devastating aspect of the Immigration Act 2014 (“2014 Act”) is the brutal scything of appeal rights. The Government has triumphantly declared that it has reduced the number of appeal rights from 17 (the number of immigration decisions in s.82 NIAA 2002 as it stands, plus s.83 & 83A appeal rights) to just three. Continue Reading…