Rule 320 case law
The first case I’ve seen dealing with the notorious Immigration Rule 320 no-return provisions came out shortly before Christmas, although judgment was actually handed down ages ago, in April 2009. The case is MA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1229.
Lord Justice Ward confirms the effect of rule 320(7B):
24. If [the appellant] goes voluntarily — and that is not at the expense of the Secretary of State — then 12 months will have to pass before he can apply for permission to get back here. If he leaves voluntarily — but the Secretary of State has to pay for it — then he has to wait five years before he can apply. If he is removed or deported, then he will not be allowed back for ten years. It is agreed that if he applies and is refused he can raise human rights arguments to contest that refusal.
Ward LJ goes on to find that it is an error of law not to take account of the effect of rule 320 in preventing physical visits to the UK in assessing whether removal amounts to a disproportionate interference with family life. The facts were strong, as the appellant had been in the UK since the age of 14 and many family members were based in the UK. No crimes had been committed and one would have thought that this is exactly the sort of case that ought to succeed, especially following the subsequently reported JO (Uganda).
The Court of Appeal is very critical of the process of reconsideration and the appalling delay that it had led to in this case:
The history fills me with such despair at the manner in which the system operates that the preservation of my equanimity probably demands that I should ignore it, but I steel myself to give a summary at least…
[potted history of case follows]
…I ask, rhetorically, is this the way to run a whelk store?
There have been other recent cases where the Court of Appeal has also criticised the reconsideration process, or at least the way that it is implemented. It is a classic example of immigration lawyers and ILPA telling everyone that it was a very bad idea but it happening anyway, only to be ignominiously abandoned a couple of years later – there’s only two weeks to go now, in fact. If only the Home Office listened to us, there would be a lot less work around for immigration lawyers.
2 Responses to Rule 320 case law
@freemvntblog
- EEA 'other family members': opinion of brilliantly named Advocate General Bot analysed: lnkd.in/PB99Cr 5 minutes ago
- Legal update on EEA 'other family members': Advocate General opinion analysis: freemovement.org.uk/2012/05/18/adv… 2 hours ago
- Vintage Mash: May ‘thought illegal immigrants had tentacles’ thedailymash.co.uk/politics/polit… 14 hours ago
- Border hopefuls queueing long enough to gain citizenship thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/b… 14 hours ago
- Article 3 medical treatment cases are worth fighting, grim case of GS (India) overturned: freemovement.org.uk/2012/05/17/gs-… 19 hours ago
Immigration cases- R (on the application of SS)v London Borough of Croydon (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 139 (IAC) (16 May 2012) 16 May 2012
- R (on the application of ES) v London Borough of Hounslow (AAJR) [2012] UKUT 138 (IAC) (15 May 2012) 16 May 2012
- MK (documents - relocation) Iraq CG [2012] UKUT 126 (IAC) (25 April 2012) 14 May 2012
- Mumu (paragraph 320; Article 8; scope) Bangladesh [2012] UKUT 143 (IAC) (14 May 2012) 14 May 2012
- Ahmadi (s.47 decision: validity; Sapkota) Afghanistan [2012] UKUT 147 (IAC) (14 May 2012) 14 May 2012
- Buama (inter-country adoption - competent court) Ghana [2012] UKUT 146 (IAC) (14 May 2012) 14 May 2012
- Barnett and others (EEA Regulations: rights and documentation) Jamaica [2012] UKUT 142 (IAC) (14 May 2012) 14 May 2012
- LK (Somalia)), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1229 (Admin) (10 May 2012) 10 May 2012
UK Border Agency- Removing full right of appeal for family visitors 10 May 2012
- Scrapping family visitor appeal rights will save millions 10 May 2012
- Service disruption at public enquiry offices 4 May 2012
- Child experts recruited to Family Returns Panel 25 April 2012
- Tier 2 certificates of sponsorship allocations for 2012/13 20 April 2012
Immigration news- Damian Green questioned by MPs over Heathrow delays: Politics live blog 18 May 2012
- In this week's New Statesman: European Crisis 17 May 2012
- New rules on overseas students 'will cost universities billions' 17 May 2012
- Dissenting Tories pushed out of backbench committee 17 May 2012
- Europe’s endgame 16 May 2012
Policy and research- Why asking the public to report irregular migrants to the UKBA is the wrong path to go down 17 May 2012
- "Home Office plans are too harsh" - Letter to the editor 16 May 2012
- Maps/Multimedia 16 May 2012
- Focus on Africa/Africans 16 May 2012
- Focus on Statelessness 15 May 2012
- The Free Movement blog is written mainly by barristers in the immigration team at Renaissance Chambers
Free email updates
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog by email- or get a Kindle blog subscription
Blog topics
Latest from HJT Training
- Drafting a statement. Drafting representations. Completing a Notice of Appeal. Dont miss out on these topics! hjt-training.co.uk/venues/1855-92… 2 days ago
- New courses. New SRA regulations. Comply or get FINED! hjt-training.co.uk/services/immig… 3 days ago
- Employment Law: Age Discrimination and the effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Seldon and Homer hjt-training.co.uk/venues/1842-92… 1 week ago
- EU, Human Right and PBS Update - Book all 3 course for £300 - thats 9 CPD!! Great offer once again! 2 weeks ago
- OISC Level 1 Manchester now £180 + VAT offer ends 30th April hjt-training.co.uk/venues/1856-92… 3 weeks ago
Disclaimer
The information and commentary on this blog is provided free of charge for information purposes only. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person. Views expressed in blog posts are those of the author only, not Renaissance Chambers as a whole.












Ward LJ on form. Para 7:
“I ask, rhetorically, is this the way to run a whelk store?”
a question? is the judge stating that when a removal is effected and as a result of Rule 320(no return)that removal should not go ahead ? Is that what the case was about ? hope someone explains it clearly to me pls