FM goose logo 144x144

With just over one month to go to the end of the solicitor CPD year and 24 CPD hours available to choose from, here are five reasons to sign up as a Free Movement Member and gain access to Free Movement’s full content and forums.

Free Movement Membership will be temporarily closed a week before the end of the CPD year for solicitors in order to focus on support for existing members. Continue Reading…

New Procedure Rules come into effect 20 October 2014

As predicted, the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 are official and come into effect on 20 October 2014. More analysis to follow in due course for Free Movement Members. Headline changes seem to me to be that:

  1. Costs can be awarded in the First-tier Tribunal and therefore also the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chambers, but only in fairly limited circumstances and not as a matter of routine (rule 9).
  2. Appeals may continue even where a decision is withdrawn by the Home Office (rule 17(2)). Leave a comment if you spot anything else interesting.
  3. The Home Office no longer gets notification of asylum decisions before the asylum seeker (rule 29).

It has been thought that the new appeal provisions would come into effect at the same time as the new rules. There is no sign of a commencement order to that effect yet, but keep your eyes peeled!


It tickles me that UKIP plan to scrap the EU agreement that permits the UK to return asylum seekers to other EU countries without considering their asylum claim. As it stands, this EU agreement, often referred to as the Dublin Convention or Dublin Regulation (not Treaty as UKIP seem to think), substantially reduces the number of asylum claims made in the UK. UKIP’s proposal is therefore perhaps the perfect example of a policy that would have the opposite effect to that intended.

It is also an ideal illustration of the problems with reciprocity the UK would face if seeking to withdraw from the European Union. Continue Reading…

National Front march
“It is noted that your former partner was born and raised in Jamaica. It is therefore considered that the children you have with her have Jamaican heritage and there would be nothing unduly harsh about them being raised within their own inherited culture.”Home Office civil servant, August 2014

I’ve left out the names. There were two children and both were born in Britain as British citizens. They can “go home” where they belong, though, as far as this civil servant is concerned.

Continue Reading…


The government has issued guidance on how section 65 of the Immigration Act 2014 will be applied. Section 65 fills the gap for children of British Citizen fathers born before 2006 whose parents were/are not married.

The provisions will create a registration route for:

  • Those who would have become British citizens automatically under the 1981 Act provisions had their parents been married
  • Those who would currently have an entitlement to registration under the 1981 Act but for the fact that their parents are not married.

The guidance includes the standard requirements for proving paternity- named on the birth certificate within one year of birth or “other evidence” including DNA, Court orders or “other evidence that shows paternity”.

Section 65 has not yet been commenced. We are told this is because

The 2014 Act is being implemented in phases to ensure the provisions are brought into force in an orderly and effective manner.

Want to know more about the Act? Buy Colin’s ebook on the Immigration Act 2014:

£9.99 – Immigration Act ebook Includes 20% tax
Image by David

Official headnote from Mohammed (Family Court proceedings-outcome) [2014] UKUT 419 (IAC):

Whilst it may be that in the Family Court jurisdiction prior to the coming into force on 22 April 2014 of the Children and Families Act 2014 there was always the possibility of a parent making a fresh application relating to contact, there is nothing in the guidance given in RS (Immigration and Family Court) India [2012] UKUT 218 (IAC) (which was approved by the Court of Appeal in Mohan v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2012] EWCA Civ 1363) that supports the notion that the mere possibility of such an application being made (or pursued) is a relevant criterion in the case of an immigration appeal when deciding whether to adjourn an appeal or to direct a grant of discretionary leave in order for such proceedings to be pursued. The guidance is concerned with whether there is a realistic prospect of the Family Court making a decision that will have a material impact on the relationship between a child and the parent facing immigration measures such as deportation.

Continue Reading…

By Szlivka Róbert

Official headnote for MG (prison-Article 28(3) (a) of Citizens Directive) Portugal [2014] UKUT 00392 (IAC):

(1) Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC contains the requirement that for those who have resided in the host member state for the previous 10 years, an expulsion decision made against them must be based upon imperative grounds of public security.

(2) There is a tension in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-400/12 Secretary of State v MG in respect of the meaning of the “enhanced protection” provision.

(3) The judgment should be understood as meaning that a period of imprisonment during those 10 years does not necessarily prevent a person from qualifying for enhanced protection if that person is sufficiently integrated. However, according to the same judgment, a period of imprisonment must have a negative impact in so far as establishing integration is concerned.

Continue Reading…

Credit: Viktor Hanacek

The fight goes on

Colin Yeo —  — 11 Comments

To those of us in favour of a No vote for unity and solidarity, the result of the Scottish referendum is a huge relief. My own sentiments were a mixture of emotion and fear. As the child of a Scottish mother and English father I have been raised to be British, never English or Scottish. I was proud to wear my kilt at my wedding and have many relatives and friends on both sides of the border. I would have been entitled to Scottish citizenship had the vote gone the other way. At the same time, I have been shaped primarily by the English education system and experience. I felt like my country and identity — one that I have always felt was by its very nature more inclusive than mere Englishness or Scottishness — was about to disappear.

I was also hugely fearful that progressive forces in the remainder of the United Kingdom would be massively and perhaps fatally wounded by separation from our Scottish comrades. Independence for Scotland would have unleashed quiescent but nasty English nationalism and consigned the vulnerable in the remainder of the United Kingdom to ever more miserable lives.

Continue Reading…