Archives For Immigration rules

By coffee bee, on Flickr

Today the new out of country deportation appeal provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 came into force, at least in part. The new regime enables the Secretary of State to require any appeal against deportation to be brought from abroad only, both in UK law and EU law cases. This post looks at the statutory power, the Home Office guidance and some of the possibilities for bringing judicial review applications against the exercise of such powers. Continue Reading…

Plane taking off

From today the Secretary of State has the power to certify deportation appeals so as to permit them only to be brought from abroad. The power is introduced by section 17 of the Immigration Act 2014, amending into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 a new section 94B.

The Home Office has issued new guidance on both non EEA and EEA deportation cases. As expected, the Home Office intends to certify in cases where there is no “real risk of serious irreversible harm.” I will return to the guidance in a separate post on the subject.

Existing appeals can be certified under section 94B. The effect is extremely limited on existing appeals, though: there seems to be no effect at all, in fact. 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…

Pound Coins by William Warby
[Scroll to bottom for updates]

The judgment is now out in the long awaited case of MM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 985, the test case challenging the minimum income threshold for spouses wishing to enter the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal has allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. This is terrible, heartbreaking news for those families forced apart by the rule. An appeal to the Supreme Court will be attempted, but it will be many months until any outcome is known.

For previous coverage here on Free Movement, including the previous judgment, see here.

What follows is just an initial reaction on reading the judgment. I will update if anything further occurs to me.

Continue Reading…

Statement of Changes HC 532 analysis

I have put together a detailed run through of all the major changes wrought by Statement of Changes HC 532. You can read my analysis here if you are a Free Movement Member. There are some significant changes to Appendix FM, the private life, deportation and human rights rules and to the Entrepreneur requirements.

You can read about the benefits of and sign up for membership here.

Divided family demonstration

Yesterday was the two year anniversary of the harsh new immigration rules introduced on 9 July 2012. Tomorrow comes the Court of Appeal decision in the challenge to the spouse minimum income threshold.

The effects of these rules are really beginning to bite: much misery has been caused by family separation. Spouses are kept apart or exiled to another country, children are deprived of a parent and grandparents are left lonely, isolated and suffering while their children can only watch helplessly from afar.

All from the government that David Cameron said he wanted to be the most family friendly in history.

There were several events yesterday, including a demonstration outside the Home Office and the release by JCWI and BritCits of a new report on the adult dependent relative rules (covered here on FM). The full report can be read here and includes thanks to readers of this blog who contributed to it. Continue Reading…

3,641 families put on hold

The Home Office has updated its statistics on the number of families with pending applications separated by the £18,600 minimum income threshold for spouses. At the end of December 2013 it was 3,014. At the end of March it stood at 3,641. That is a LOT of separated families and an almost unimaginable amount of anguish. All caused by the Government David Cameron said in Opposition he wanted “to be the most family friendly Government we’ve ever had in this country and that is about everything we do to support families and it’s about supporting every sort of family.”

Judgment in the MM case will be soon. But there will almost certainly be an appeal to the Supreme Court by whichever side loses, so the misery will continue.

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…