Updates, commentary and advice on immigration and asylum law
New course on problem issues in permanent residence applications available now

When can a tribunal be forced to pay the costs of judicially reviewing it?

“Not often” is the answer. Only if the tribunal acts in an improper way. Incompetence or unlawfulness is not sufficient. In this case, R (on the application of Gudanaviciene) v Immigration and Asylum First Tier Tribunal [2017] EWCA Civ 352, an EU national was facing deportation. She appealed the decision to deport but no legal aid was available to assist her and she could not afford to pay for legal representation. A good firm of solicitors, Turpin Miller in Oxford, agreed to take on her case but only to the extent that they would, unfunded, help her apply to the Legal Aid Agency for “Exceptional Case Funding”. Her application for…

18th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visas: is Britain open for business?

Businesses large and small are the backbone of our economies, and enterprise is the engine of our prosperity. That is why Britain is – and will always be – open for business: open to investment in our companies, infrastructure, universities and entrepreneurs.   –  Theresa May, Davos, January 2017 Entrepreneurs are used to taking risks. And in applying for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa, they will certainly be taking one. While in the 3 years to December 2016 the UK issued entry clearance to 2,821 holders of entrepreneur visas, and granted in-country extensions of leave in 7,283 cases in the same category, the refusal rate for both applications has consistently…

17th May 2017 By Nick Nason

New CJEU case extends Zambrano rights of residence, emphasises best interests of children

In a new case, Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Netherlands C-133/15, the Court of Justice of the European Union has significantly extended Zambrano rights beyond those so far recognised by the Home Office and UK courts. The case offers far better guidance than was available in previous cases and emphasises that the impact on children is a primary consideration. Background The case involved seven mothers who had applied to the Dutch authorities for residence on the basis of being the primary carers of young Dutch children. They had all been refused residency because it was said that the fathers of the children could care for them, and therefore the children would not…

16th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Family life succeeds in defeating s.94B ‘deport first, appeal later’ certification

The judgment in OO (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 338 is one of a series of cases challenging the lawfulness of the certification regime under s.94B Nationality Immigration Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). The issue has been considered several times on Free Movement, and judgment is still awaited on the lead test case of Kiarie and Byndloss v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1020, heard by the Supreme Court in March. This case is notable for its treatment of family life issues in respect of a (potentially) temporary absence from the United Kingdom whilst an appeal is ongoing, and a…

15th May 2017 By Nick Nason

Home Office unlawfully relies on Albania guidance for five years

LC (Albania)  v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 340 The Home Office has relied on outdated guidance to determine asylum applications from Albanian nationals, the Court of Appeal has held. The judgment in LC (Albania) will have far-reaching effects for those people denied protection under bad law over a number of years. The judgment also reiterates the approach to be taken when considering the future behaviour of asylum applicants if they return to their home country. Asylum claims based on sexuality Guidance for determining asylum applications on sexuality identity grounds was articulated in HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31 (“HJ (Iran)”)….

12th May 2017 By Thomas Beamont

INTERPOL “wanted” alerts: using them as evidence and making them go away

This post discusses issues arising for asylum practitioners from INTERPOL “wanted person” notices. The key points are (i) you can find out, possibly quite quickly, if there is such a notice in place, which in the affirmative may help to establish a risk of persecution; and (ii) if there is a notice in place, you can challenge it to ensure your client does not face a risk of arrest when s/he travels. For full legal geekery on this topic, see my recent article, cited with approval by the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see here). INTERPOL alert = evidence of…

10th May 2017 By Alex Tinsley
View All Posts

Not yet a member of Free Movement?

Sign up for as little as £20 plus VAT per month

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Unlimited access to all articles
  • Access to our forums
  • E-books for free
  • Access to all online training materials
  • Downloadable training certificates