Archives For Tribunal

grass green sky blue

The immigration tribunal reporting committee has been selecting some rather odd cases for reporting. It is a good job there aren’t any difficult legal issues in immigration and asylum law still out there on which judges, lawyers and litigants need guidance and that the tribunal is able to turn its collective mind to matters such as Budhathoki (reasons for decisions) [2014] UKUT 00341 (IAC): Continue Reading…

wedding rings

The idea of a “proxy marriage” is rather alien in the UK and our fairly recently developed romantic love culture. It involves one or both parties to a marriage being represented by someone else at the marriage ceremony rather than attending in person. It is a sort of literal version of one’s mind being elsewhere, I suppose, and in an increasingly globalised and time-poor world will perhaps become more common…

Proxy marriages have been addressed in at least two previous tribunal determinations (and my first post on this subject was in 2008) and also featured in a recent Chief Inspector or Borders and Immigration report (and even more so in the ensuing media coverage). The latest case is TA and Others (Kareem explained) Ghana [2014] UKUT 316 (IAC). It usually means trouble where a previous determination or judgment needs to be “explained”. Continue Reading…

Pinnochio by Grand Parc - Bordeaux, France

Omenma (Conditional discharge – not a conviction of an offence) [2014] UKUT 314 (IAC) is an interesting case for two reasons. Firstly, the Home Office accepted that the decision was wrong and withdrew it. Nevertheless, because the case had reached the Upper Tribunal, the withdrawal of decision did not automatically deprive the Upper Tribunal of jurisdiction, and it went on to determine the appeal anyway.

The actual reason for it being reported is that the appellant had answered “no” to the standard visa application form question about previous convictions. In fact she had pleaded guilty to shoplifting some years previously and been given a conditional discharge. Was she dishonest in her answer? The Home Office and the First-tier judge answered “yes” and her application and appeal had therefore failed so far. Continue Reading…

Cases arriving on luggage carousel

The luggage carousel of the tribunal’s reporting committee has spewed forth a fresh batch of cases. Two of them concern deportation, one under domestic primary legislation and the other under European Union law. The facts are very different but the cases illustrate well the stark differences between domestic and EU law on deportation. Continue Reading…

Gaddafi mural with bullet holes by mojomogwai, on Flickr

Nearly 3 years after the end of the civil war in Libya that swept away the Qadhafi regime and its associated country guidance, and after nearly 8 months of deliberation, the Upper Tribunal has decided that Libya isn’t so bad after all, at least for men. The determination of AT and Others (Article 15c; risk categories) (CG) [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) runs to 261 paragraphs plus 8 appendices, and the tribunal is to be commended for its lucid treatment of a huge amount of evidence, delay (and some conclusions) notwithstanding. The hearing itself was notable for taking live videolink evidence from a country expert in New York City. Continue Reading…

man bending a ruler

Having been overruled by the Court of Appeal in the case of Rodriguez [2014] EWCA Civ 2 (FM post here), Mr Justice McCloskey, President of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, has returned to the vexed issue of ‘evidential flexibility’ in a trio of cases:

Durrani (Entrepreneurs: bank letters; evidential flexibility) [2014] UKUT 295 (IAC)

Akhter and another (paragraph 245AA: wrong format) [2014] UKUT 297 (IAC)

Fayyaz (Entrepreneurs: paragraph 41-SD(a)(i) – “provided to”) [2014] UKUT 296 (IAC)

This is an issue that the Supreme Court will be examining in the coming months, permission having been granted on 19 May 2014 in Rodriguez (now called Mandalia). These latest Upper Tribunal cases are not, therefore, the last word we will see on the subject.

The headnotes read as follows: Continue Reading…

Update on Haleemudeen vs Edgehill

Free Movement write up and prediction here.

And an update from Paul Richardson, Counsel for Mr Haleemudeen: Continue Reading…

Cases arriving on luggage carousel

In the fine case of Fetle (Partners: two year requirement) [2014] UKUT 00267 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal holds that the requirement in paragraph 352AA for partners of refugees seeking entry clearance for living together in a relationship akin to either a marriage or a civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more is not the same as the two year cohabitation requirement in the main spouse and partner rules in Appendix FM. The official headnote reads: Continue Reading…

Pinnochio by Grand Parc - Bordeaux, France

The first of these is a useful short case that came out while I was away called Shen (Paper appeals; proving dishonesty) [2014] UKUT 236 (IAC). It is another example of an applicant with a driving conviction who ticked the ‘no’ box to the question about previous convictions standard on all immigration application forms. As previously discussed, even Home Office policy guidance recognises that mandatory refusal is not necessarily justified on such facts. In this case the applicant’s evidence was that she did not realise she had been convicted because she had not received any further communication from the police about her case.

As is standard in paper appeals, the Home Office did not engage with the case and did not seek to challenge or disprove the applicant’s evidence. Nevertheless, the judge at first instance somehow found that the Home Office had discharged the burden of proving dishonesty. Continue Reading…