Updates, commentary and advice on immigration and asylum law
New course on Immigration Act 2016 available now

Another unsuccessful Legacy case

In R (on the application of Bah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 518 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal finds that even though the applicant had received a letter stating that the Home Office “aimed” to resolve cases by July 2011, this did not amount to an unambiguous promise because the letter went on to imply that some cases might not be. You can get a flavour of the reasoning from paragraph 42:

I do not accept that the words: ‘your’, ‘will’, ‘be’ and ‘deadline’ made this letter a letter by which a specific promise was given to review the case by July 2011.

Signing in blood with God as an actual manifest witness probably wouldn’t have worked either. For further reading on The Legacy see earlier post: Legacy cases “laid to rest” by Court of Appeal.

Colin Yeo
Colin Yeo A barrister specialising in UK immigration law at Garden Court Chambers in London, I have been practising in immigration law for 15 years. I am passionate about immigration law and founded and edit the Free Movement immigration law blog.

Not yet a member of Free Movement?

Sign up for as little as £20 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
Shares