1 2

All posts for : Category: Deportation

Operation Nexus police/immigration joint working unsuccessfully challenged in High Court

In The Centre for Advice On Individual Rights In Europe v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2017] EWHC 1878 (Admin) (21 July 2017) the excellent AIRE centre brought a challenge to the way Operation Nexus operates in respect of European and EEA nationals. Operation Nexus has been covered previously by Free Movement, most recently reporting on the belated released of guidance, with calls for both evidence and funding for this recent challenge publicised via the blog. What is Nexus? As detailed in previous writing on the subject, and as set out in this judgment [6] Operation Nexus has three strands or elements; only the first…

10th August 2017 By Nick Nason

Court of Appeal reiterates effect of orders in the family courts on deportation decisions

The Court of Appeal in GD (Ghana) [2017] EWCA Civ 1126 explained once again what effect residence orders granted by a Family Court have on immigration matters, and criticised both representatives in the First-Tier Tribunal for failing to put the relevant law to the Tribunal. The ‘residence order’ regime has now been replaced with ‘child arrangement orders’ by the Children and Families Act 2014, but this does not change the effect of family proceedings on immigration proceedings. Residence orders are made by a Family Court and determine with whom a child subject to the order will live, and will usually last until the child is 16 years of age. A decision-maker…

8th August 2017 By Paul Erdunast

Court of Appeal considers revocation of deportation order where deportee returns early in breach of the order

In SSHD v SU [2017] EWCA Civ 1069 (20 July 2017) the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the unusual case of an individual who had been deported from the UK, returned in breach of the order, and then applied for its revocation having established a private and family life during the subsequent period of unlawful residence. The case clarifies the applicable rules in revocation cases and provides further evidence, if it were needed, of the complexity of the relevant rules, with two differently constituted tribunals failing to consider two key (albeit very recently instituted) provisions. Facts In February 1998 the Secretary of State (SSHD) made a deportation order…

7th August 2017 By Nick Nason

What is the law on the deportation of non EU foreign criminals and their human rights?

Deportation proceedings pit the rights of the individual against those of the state, appointed guardian of the public interest. And as very clearly stated in primary legislation, the deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest. The relevant law in this area is rent through with politics, shifting relentlessly with headlines, changes to rules or legislation, and the latest decisions of the courts. The shifts over the past 5 years have been unremitting. We consider the recent history of deportation law in the UK, the individuals who will be subject to these rules, and the arguments available to those seeking to challenge decisions to deport them. A brief and…

27th July 2017 By Nick Nason

Secretary of State criticised by Court of Appeal for “confused” and “messy” legal analysis in deportation case

The Home Office has been criticised by the Court of Appeal for its “confused” and “messy” legal analysis in the matter of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mosira [2017] EWCA Civ 407. The Secretary of State sought to apply refugee cessation provisions to a non-refugee deportee; rigidly sticking to its increasingly untenable position throughout the proceedings. The individual – a Zimbabwean national – had never in fact been granted refugee status but was bestowed it on a technicality for the purposes of family re-unification. By the time the Secretary of State had realised her errors, it was too late as far as the Court of Appeal was…

26th June 2017 By Rebecca Carr

Supreme Court rules “deport first, appeal later” is unfair and unlawful

In R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 the Supreme Court has struck down “deport first, appeal later” certificates for two foreign criminals. The Home Office had made use of new rules in the Immigration Act 2014 which force some appellants to leave the UK before their appeal takes place, meaning that they are not present to give evidence. Of 1,175 cases in which these powers have so far been used, only 72 individuals attempted to pursue an appeal from abroad. None succeeded. The “deport first, appeal later” rules were originally applied only to foreign criminals facing deportation. However, the Immigration Act…

14th June 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal: “Particularly where children are concerned, there is no such thing as an average case”

By the tone of this judgment, the Court of Appeal in SSHD v RF (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 124 appears to be suffering from deportation fatigue, considering ‘yet another case’ [1] involving a foreign national criminal appealing against a decision to deport. It is testament to the high stakes involved, both politically for the Secretary of State, and individually for the foreign national subjects, that these cases are so regularly reaching the highest courts in the land. Exceptional vs Compelling Under Immigration Rule 398, a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to longer than 4 years imprisonment must show ‘exceptional circumstances’ if he or she is to outweigh the public interest in deportation….

25th May 2017 By Nick Nason

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

Tribunal gives guidance on revocation of deportation orders after 10 years

Official headnote: (i) In cases involving convictions for an offence for which the person was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 4 years, the Secretary of State’s policy, as expressed in paragraph 391(a) of the Immigration Rules, is that the public interest does not require continuation of a deportation order after a period of ten years has elapsed. (ii) However, paragraph 391(a) allows the Secretary of State to consider on a case by case basis whether a deportation order should be maintained. The mere fact of past convictions is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain an order if the ‘prescribed period’ has elapsed. Strong public policy reasons…

28th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Home Office belatedly issues guidance on Operation Nexus

Operation Nexus was officially launched in November 2012, a law enforcement initiative aimed at deporting more ‘high harm’ foreign nationals. It has been criticised on many occasions for its opacity, and the lack of any publicly available policies which govern its implementation. See, for example, our previous post: Operation Nexus for dummies: happening now, in our time. Last month, 4 ½ years into its operation, the Home Office finally issued some guidance. What is Operation Nexus? According to the note, there are broadly two strands to Operation Nexus: Nexus Custody – Immigration Officers (IOs) deployed to designated police custody suites to examine all foreign nationals who are arrested. Cases identified as…

24th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Court of Appeal decides Supreme Court ruling in Hesham Ali is already redundant

Well, that did not take long. The Court of Appeal has in the case of NE-A (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 239 decided that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 is confined to cases in which the Immigration Rules are applied and does not apply to cases decided under the statutory human rights considerations introduced by the Immigration Act 2014. As background, in 2012 the Government introduced new Immigration Rules which in effect set a series of strict quasi-statutory tests to be applied in immigration cases in which human rights were pleaded. The intended effect was to reduce the…

18th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal gives guidance on meaning of ‘unlawful residence’

The case of Akinyemi v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 236 concerns the deportation of a man born and raised in the United Kingdom, a country he has never left. It provides valuable guidance on the meaning of the word ‘unlawful’ within the context of deportation provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 and shows just how far the law has moved in this area. Facts Remi Akinyemi is a man for whom one struggles to feel any great sympathy. Over the course of a prolific criminal career he accumulated 20 convictions and was found guilty of, amongst other offences, causing death by dangerous driving, possession of heroin with intent to supply, and…

11th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Deport first, appeal later certificates, judicial reviews and fresh claims considered by Upper Tribunal

In the judicial review case of Ayache, R (on the application of) v SSHD (paragraph 353 and s94B relationship) [2017] UKUT 122 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers the lawfulness of a decision to certify a human rights claim under s.94B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. For those not already aware, s.94B gives effect to the government’s “Deport First, Appeal Later” policy, which was upheld as lawful by the Court of Appeal in Kiarie and Byndloss v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1020. The test case was, however, subject to an onward to appeal which was heard by the Supreme Court last month. Judgment is awaited. Brief Facts The Applicant in the…

4th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Updated Home Office guidance on criminality in article 8 ECHR cases

Source: Criminality guidance in article 8 ECHR cases – GOV.UK The change log says: Additional sections to reflect the Supreme Court judgment in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] and the European Court of Justice judgement in Ruiz Zambrano (European citizenship) [2011] ECJ C-34/09. On Hesham Ali, as would be expected, the guidance notes that the Supreme Court did not consider the effect of the introduction of statutory considerations. On Zambrano, the guidance refers to the case of CS v UK C-304/14 and then goes on: This means that where a derivative right of residence is established, deportation must be considered under regulation 19(3)(b) and regulation…

1st March 2017 By Colin Yeo

New case on two year reconsideration period for EU deportations

A new tribunal case on EU deportations. The headnote: Neither a decision to make a deportation order nor a notice of intention to make a deportation order triggers the two year period specified in regulation 24(5) of the EEA Regulations. The two year period begins upon the making of the deportation order itself. Regulation 24(5) provides for automatic reconsideration of deportation decisions if a person receives a deportation order but it is not actioned for a two year period. It reads: Where such a deportation order is made against a person but he is not removed under the order during the two year period beginning on the date on which…

23rd December 2016 By Colin Yeo

Hesham Ali and Makhlouf: What is the correct approach to determining deportation appeals?

In the cases of Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 and Makhlouf [2016] UKSC 59 the Supreme Court has, finally, given guidance the correct approach to the determination of appeals against deportation decisions. Both the appeals were dismissed and the Home Office prevailed; but that is not the whole story and we have to look at the judgments carefully to understand the proper approach. Word is that the delay between the hearing of Ali and Makhlouf in January 2016 and handing down of the judgment last week was due to disagreements between the justices. Those disagreements were ultimately largely resolved, it would seem. Lord Reed gives the leading judgment in Ali with a…

24th November 2016 By Colin Yeo

Supreme Court dismisses deportation appeals

The Supreme Court has handed down the long awaited judgments in Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 59 on the impact of deportation on affected children and Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 on the weight to be given to the Immigration Rules in an appeal against a deportation order. More detailed analysis to follow, but for now the press releases… UPDATE: see full analysis: Ali and Makhlouf: What is the correct approach to determining deportation appeals? Makhlouf: BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL This is an appeal against an order for the deportation of a foreign criminal who has children who are…

16th November 2016 By Colin Yeo

EU deportation appeals do not include consideration of prisoner transfer

The European Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA has replaced the framework previously set out in the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, itself supplemented by the Protocol of 18 December 1997, to provide the framework within which a request may be made to another Member State for the transfer of an EEA national sentenced in the United Kingdom to serve that sentence in his own country. In the United Kingdom context, it is a precondition for making a transfer request that there be in place a deportation order. A decision to make a deportation order is not a decision to transfer a serving prisoner to another Member State…

17th October 2016 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal gives (more) guidance on deportation cases

The Court of Appeal has given further guidance on the convoluted and badly drafted statutory presumptions on human rights in UK law. Trying to make sense of interlocking provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007, the Immigration Rules as amended (and amended and amended) and the Immigration Act 2014, the court concludes that the latter is so badly drafted that it must considered to be a drafting error. Specifically, the court finds that as drafted the Act gives greater protection to more serious criminals than less serious ones, which must be a mistake. The key provision is subsection (3) of section 117C of the 2014 Act. The whole section reads…

3rd August 2016 By Colin Yeo

Serial criminal to be deported despite impact on his children

If you attempt to murder someone with a gun, and after release from prison for attempted murder (a sentence of over four years), are caught again with a loaded gun and imprisoned, do not be surprised that only the most exceptional circumstances will save you from deportation. This was all in the context of running a drug-dealing ‘business’. The main point in the Home Office appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v CT (Vietnam) [2016] EWCA Civ 488 concerns the Article 8 argument which was rejected. Lady Justice Rafferty stated that the effect on the children of having only one parent subsequently remaining in the UK was not enough to pass…

15th July 2016 By Paul Erdunast

Nkomo (Deportation: 2014 rights of appeal : Zimbabwe) [2016] UKUT 285 (IAC)

1. The No 3 Commencement Order of the 2014 Act, SI 2014/2771, extends the new appeals provisions to identified persons, but the amendment of it in SI 2014/2928 further extends those provisions to identified decisions. 2. In consequence, a person against whom a deportation decision was made in the period 10 November 2014 – 5 April 2015 may have no right of appeal if the decisions actually made carry rights of appeal only under the new appeals provisions. (Note: A further change was made to the commencement provision with effect from 2 March 2015, which did not fall for consideration on the facts of this case.) Fascinating. So glad that…

27th June 2016 By Colin Yeo

Johnson (deportation – 4 years imprisonment : Sierra Leone) [2016] UKUT 282 (IAC)

When a foreign offender has been convicted of an offence for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment of at least 4 years and has successfully appealed on human rights grounds, this does not prevent the Secretary of State from relying on the conviction for the purposes of paragraph 398(a) of the Immigration Rules and s.117C of the 2002 Act if and when he re-offends even if the later offence results in less than 4 years imprisonment or, indeed, less than 12 months imprisonment. The Home Office may have a second bite at the cherry. Source: Johnson (deportation – 4 years imprisonment : Sierra Leone) [2016] UKUT 282 (IAC) (13…

27th June 2016 By Colin Yeo

Stop deportation without fair trial: funding sought for challenge to Operation Nexus

The excellent AIRE Centre are fundraising for a challenge to Operation Nexus, the joint Met Police and Home Office initiative that allows people to be deported from the UK without any convictions. It is not just foreign nationals that are being targeted but also EEA nationals. We’ve covered Operation Nexus several times previously on Free Movement. It is a very concerning project. You can find out more and donate here but it has to be soon.

9th May 2016 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal overturns President’s decision to allow deportation appeal

BL (Jamaica) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 357 is essentially an unhelpful judgment for convicted criminals arguing against deportation orders on Article 8 grounds. It overturned a McCloskey J and UTJ Perkins decision in the Upper Tribunal that allowed the appeal from a refusal by the First Tier Tribunal, criticising the UT judges for failing to follow the guidance in of SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State [2014] 1 WLR 908 and MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State [2014] 1 WLR 544: The UT did not follow the holdings of this Court, in the two authorities that I have referred to at the…

29th April 2016 By Chris McWatters

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nouazli v SSHD and Lawful Discrimination

As if Michael Gove MP needed further reminding, in wake of Colin Yeo’s appearance on World at One on Wednesday where he pointed out the fundamental error of the Justice Secretary’s assertion that Britain cannot deport EEA nationals with a criminal record, the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Nouazli) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2016] UKSC 16 makes clear that EEA nationals can be deported by virtue of regulation 19 (3) (b) of the EEA Regulations 2006 ‘if the Secretary of State has decided that the person’s removal is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or health…’ However the issue…

25th April 2016 By Chris McWatters

Tribunal defines meaning of “persistent offender”

1. The question whether the appellant “is a persistent offender” is a question of mixed fact and law and falls to be determined by the Tribunal as at the date of the hearing before it. 2. The phrase “persistent offender” in s.117D(2)(c) of the 2002 Act must mean the same thing as “persistent offender” in paragraph 398(c) of the Immigration Rules. 3. A “persistent offender” is someone who keeps on breaking the law. That does not mean, however, that he has to keep on offending until the date of the relevant decision or that the continuity of the offending cannot be broken. A “persistent offender” is not a permanent status…

15th April 2016 By Colin Yeo

London rioter wins deportation appeal in Court of Appeal

58. In 2003 the claimant, a Zambian national who had only ever lived in Zimbabwe, came to the UK at the age of 9. His family settled in the UK and obtained British citizenship. In August 2011 the claimant took part in the London riots. As a result, in 2012 he pleaded guilty to violent disorder and arson, for which he was sentenced to 4½ years’ detention. 59. The Secretary of State decided to deport the claimant as a foreign criminal. The claimant appealed against that decision, relying upon article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal and the Upper Tribunal upheld…

2nd March 2016 By Colin Yeo

Presumption of readmission for EEA nationals to attend deportation appeals

Further to the decision of Blake J in the case of Gheorghiu (reg 24AA EEA Regs – relevant factors) [2016] UKUT 24 (IAC) (FM post: Upper Tribunal considers when EEA nationals should be readmitted to UK to attend own deportation appeal hearings) the Upper Tribunal has returned to the issue of the readmission of EEA nationals to attend their own deportation appeal hearings where they have been subject to the “deport first, appeal later” rules. The latest decision is R (on the application of Kasicky) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reg 29AA: interpretation) IJR [2016] UKUT 107 (IAC). Declan O’Callaghan of Landmark Chambers was Counsel and has sent in this short note:…

26th February 2016 By Colin Yeo

Home Office fails in attempt to deport Italian man resident in UK for 60 years

The Court of Appeal has in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Vassallo [2016] EWCA Civ 13 rejected the Home Secretary’s efforts to deport an Italian man who has been resident in the UK for more than 60 years. Benedetto Vassallo came to the UK from Italy when he was four in 1952. He had married a British woman, has British children and grandchildren and, having only returned to Italy once for a holiday in the early 1970s, speaks little Italian and cannot read it. In the UK, though, he had undoubtedly led a life of crime, racking up 31 separate convictions, in respect of…

25th February 2016 By Colin Yeo

Consecutive sentences do not a foreign criminal make

A person sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment made up of consecutive terms is not a ‘foreign criminal’ within the meaning of the deportation provisions of the Immigration Rules and is not therefore subject to paragraph 398 of those Rules. Source: OLO and Others (para 398 – “foreign criminal”) [2016] UKUT 56 (IAC) (15 January 2016)

9th February 2016 By Colin Yeo

Upper Tribunal considers when EEA nationals should be readmitted to UK to attend own deportation appeal hearings

In 2014 the Home Office amended the UK’s rules on EU law deportation cases to allow a deportation to go ahead before an EEA national completes any appeal process against that decision to deport. This has become known as “deport first, appeal later”. Similar rules were also introduced for non EU law deportation cases and these were considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Kiarie (FM blog post: Court of Appeal gives judgment on the “deport first, appeal later” regime). The Upper Tribunal has now turned its mind to the parallel EU law regime in the case of Gheorghiu (reg 24AA EEA Regs – relevant factors) [2016] UKUT…

19th January 2016 By Colin Yeo

Yet another case on the immigration rules on deportation

Official headnote to AB (para 399(a)) [2015] UKUT 657 (IAC) (20 November 2015): Head note 3 of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Ogundimu (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 60 (IAC) applies to the version of para 399(a) of the Immigration Rules that was in force as at 27 July 2014. It does not apply to the current version of para 399(a) of the Immigration Rules which came into force on 28 July 2014. This is because the current version does not have the requirement that “there is no other family member who is able to care for the child in the UK” which concerned the Upper Tribunal…

11th January 2016 By Colin Yeo

Immigration status of foreign criminals is precarious says Upper Tribunal

Another illuminating headnote from the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber reporting committee: (i) The requirements in para 399(b) are conjunctive. Accordingly, the correct approach is to consider para 399(b)(i) before the requirements in para 399(b)(ii) and (iii). If para 399(b)(i) is not satisfied, there is no need to consider the issues of undue hardship in para 399(b)(ii) and (iii). The offender would then have to rely upon showing other factors that show very compelling circumstances over and beyond those described in paras 399 and 399A. (ii) Para 399(b)(i) will only be satisfied if the relationship relied upon was entered into at a time when: (a) the offender had settled status…

6th January 2016 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal considers EU deportation, public revulsion and “imperative grounds”

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v Straszewski [2015] EWCA Civ 1245 (03 December 2015) Moore-Bick LJ, giving the leading judgment, finds that public revulsion is not generally relevant to decisions to deport under EU law. The facts Two cases were linked for the purposes of this judgment. The first case, Straszewski, involved a Polish national aged 29. He had lived int he UK since the age of 11 and acquied permanent residence in 2003 (albeit retrospectively, once that right came into existence in 2006). He pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful wounding in relation to an incident in 2010 in which he caused serious injuries to the face…

6th January 2016 By Colin Yeo

Upper Tribunal considers deport first appeal later provisions for EEA nationals

Official headnote: A decision to certify a person’s (P’s) removal under regulation 24AA of the European Economic Area Regulations 2006 operates as a temporary measure that can be applied only for so long as there is a statutory appeal which could be brought in time or which is pending. Regulation 24AA is a discretionary measure whose implementation is currently subject to Home Office guidance entitled “Regulation 24AA Certification Guidance for European Economic Area deportation cases”. EEA decisions to remove or deport taken against EEA nationals do not have automatic suspensive effect. No removal can take place, however, until an applicant has had a decision on any application made for an…

15th December 2015 By Colin Yeo

When might deportation orders be revoked before 10 years is up?

Background The facts of Secretary of State for the Home Department v ZP (India) [2015] EWCA Civ 1197 involved some of the worst breaches of immigration law ever seen in a reported decision: overstaying a visit visa in 2002 then organising and taking part in sham marriages, fleeing abroad in 2003 when detected and being convicted in her absence and then re-entering the UK in a false identity in 2005, obtaining settlement in this false identity in 2007 and then on detection being convicted again for breaches of immigration law and, after serving her sentence, being deported in 2009. Undeterred, the lady concerned applied a few years later for revocation…

14th December 2015 By Colin Yeo

Factsheets on deportation and detention

Just seen these great factsheets from BID on deportation and detention issues, with really useful advice and suggestions for those trying to represent themselves or their friends and family: BID Factsheet 1: Immigration appeals including deportation The Home Office has refused me permission to stay in the UK. Can I appeal their decision? 20 Jun 2013 BID factsheet 2: Getting Probation approval for your immigration bail address I’m a foreign national ex-offender, I’m still on Licence, and I want to apply for immigration bail. What do I need to do? 12 Sep 2013 BID Factsheet 3: Information for immigration detainees held in prisons I’m an immigration detainee but I am…

9th December 2015 By Colin Yeo

Coming home to Jamaica: Home Office publishes guide for deportees

The Home Office has published a guide called Coming Home to Jamaica for Jamaican nationals being deported or removed from the UK to Jamaica. It is a mix of useful and crass. Information on emergency acommodation on arrival is provided but the guide goes on to urge deportees to adopt a local accent in order to avoid “unwanted attention”. The guide includes plenty of information that anyone familiar with Jamaica would already know; the reality is that this guide is aimed at those who are Jamaican by nationality but whose home is the United Kingdom.

3rd December 2015 By Colin Yeo

“Slavish” lodging of appeals against deportation determinations deplored by President of Upper Tribunal

In Greenwood (No. 2) (para 398 considered) [2015] UKUT 629 (IAC), the “Empire Strikes Back” style sequel to Greenwood (Automatic Deportation: Order of Events) [2014] UKUT 342 (IAC), President McCloskey gives guidance on the correct approach to consideration of deportation appeals. This is a hotly contested and highly politicised area of work and his comments are interesting. The comments are all the more interesting when set alongside the contrasting approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Boyd [2015] EWCA Civ 1190, a judgment which was to appear on BAILII on the very same day.

23rd November 2015 By Colin Yeo

Meaning of “unduly harsh” in the Immigration Rules

A dispute has arisen between different panels of the Upper Tribunal’s Immigration and Asylum Chamber. The subject is the meaning and interpretation of the words “unduly harsh” at paragraph 399 of the Immigration Rules, which reads: 399. This paragraph applies where paragraph 398 (b) or (c) applies if – (a) the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child under the age of 18 years who is in the UK, and (i) the child is a British Citizen; or (ii) the child has lived in the UK continuously for at least the 7 years immediately preceding the date of the immigration decision; and in either case (a) it…

16th November 2015 By Colin Yeo
1 2