1 2 3 4 5 6 7

People accused of TOEIC cheating have in-country right of challenge

The Court of Appeal has held in Ahsan v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 2009 that people accused of cheating on the TOEIC English language test and threatened with removal from the UK have the right to challenge that decision in this country rather than from abroad. In three of the four grouped appeals decided this morning, the appellants had been served with a removal notice under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Lord Justice Underhill said that an out-of-country appeal would not satisfy the Appellants’ rights, either at common law or under article 8 of the Convention, to a fair and…

5th December 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Failure to provide evidence of right to work not a fair reason to dismiss, says Employment Appeal Tribunal

Like (I suspect) many other practitioners, I often find myself speaking to a client’s employer to explain to them why my client has the right to work. The most typical example is where a client has submitted an application by post before the expiry of their leave. The document showing their right to work will usually expire before the application is decided. However, section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 will automatically extend that person’s leave while their application is being decided. Therefore, although they may not have a valid document showing their right to work, they indeed have that right. My client’s employer will often insist on seeing a document…

4th December 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Expert reports in human rights cases must be up to scratch

In HK, HH, SK and FK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871 the Court of Appeal found that asylum seekers could be returned to Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation. Removal would not violate the appellants’ Article 3 rights, despite medical reports on their poor mental health and NGO evidence on the poor treatment of asylum seekers by the Bulgarian authorities. Two aspects of the case are valuable for lawyers representing asylum seekers. First, Lord Justice Sales made some promising obiter comments on the (widening) scope of Article 3. Second, the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of NGOs complying with expert evidence requirements. Challenging removal …

1st December 2017 By Clare Duffy

Solicitors unfit to practise can become regulated immigration advisers

A solicitor who is suspended from practice can nevertheless advise clients on immigration law. This simple but perhaps surprising fact was highlighted by a recent case before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in which an East London solicitor unsuccessfully challenged an indefinite suspension given to him in 2009. Since that time, the judgment shows, he has been working as an adviser regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). The disciplinary tribunal decision in Rana Khalil Rahman v Solicitors Regulation Authority was published on 24 November. It concerned the indefinite suspension of the applicant ordered in November 2009 for “very serious” breaches of the professional rules for solicitors. The…

30th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Never assume that the Secretary of State is aware of anything

Further submissions are notoriously difficult to prepare. In PR (Sri Lanka), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1946 the Court of Appeal has highlighted the need for focussed representations that make specific reference to all evidence and country information being relied upon. PR had his initial asylum appeal dismissed but with some positive credibility findings made by the judge. He made further submissions  relying on the country guidance given in the case of GJ (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG (Rev 1) [2013] UKUT 319 (IAC), which post-dated the initial appeal dismissal, and a medical report indicating he was suffering from…

29th November 2017 By Christopher Cole

Asylum “lottery”: some hearing centres grant twice as many appeals

First-tier Tribunal appeals against asylum decisions are twice as likely to succeed at some hearing centres compared to others, a BBC investigation has found. 47% of appeals succeeded at Taylor House, whereas the success rate was as low as 21% at Yarl’s Wood and 24% in Belfast. The data comes from Freedom of Information requests covering January 2013 to September 2016 and excluding fast-track cases. Last year the nationwide success rate for FTT asylum appeals was 41%, separate Ministry of Justice statistics show. Retired tribunal judge Catriona Jarvis told the BBC researchers that It’s wholly wrong. It shouldn’t be a lottery. Another practitioner said that she found the variation “not surprising…

29th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

MK Pakistan: Sala overturned in the Court of Appeal

In Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal : Albania) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal held that there was no right of appeal against a decision by the Home Office to refuse a residence card to the extended family member of an EEA citizen. The Court of Appeal declared on 13 October 2017 that this decision was wrong. Today the court (Etherton MR, Longmore LJ, Irwin LJ) handed down its judgment giving reasons for that decision. The case is Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1755 (although it is more widely known as MK Pakistan). The original Sala decision came as a something of a surprise. As the Court of…

9th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Where to find official guidance on immigration bail and detention

Practitioners may be wondering where on earth the Home Office guidance on bail and detention has got to. It used to be housed in a section of the Home Office website entitled “Chapters 46 to 62: detention and removals“. But as visitors to that section can now see, chapters 55 (on detention and temporary release), 55a (on detention of pregnant women) and 57 (on bail) have been recategorised. They now sit within the offender management section of the “Immigration Enforcement general instructions” section of the site. Similarly, as the screenshot above shows, chapters 59 and 60 now live in the returns preparation section of the same collection. Chapters 53 and 56…

6th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Immigration appeal waiting times rise 13%, now take a year on average

The average immigration appeal takes almost 12 months to be resolved, up 13% on the same period last year. This is despite the fact that less than half as many people now have the chance to challenge Home Office decisions. The number of appeals handled by the immigration tribunal has fallen from around 20,000 to 8,000 – a startling 60% fall – since the Immigration Act 2014 was passed. Appeal waiting times continue to rise Immigration and asylum appeals at the First-tier Tribunal took 51 weeks to be resolved in April-June 2017 – the latest period for which data is available – according to the Ministry of Justice. That represents…

6th November 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Home Secretary Amber Rudd announces review of Immigration Rules

The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has announced that the Law Commission will conduct a review of the Immigration Rules. The review came to light in Rudd’s oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 17 October but Law Commission staff had already begun meetings before then, including with me. At question 84, Rudd was asked about the complexity of the rules. She replied: I have already requested the Law Commission to review our immigration laws with a view to simplifying them. There were 20,000 different pieces of regulation for non-EU regulations and we have now got them down to 4,000. It is incredibly important—I share your frustration—and this is…

26th October 2017 By Colin Yeo

How not to serve a curtailment letter

The Upper Tribunal has granted an application for judicial review in a case concerning service of a curtailment letter, holding that: (i) The effect of Article 8ZA of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 (SI No. 2000/1161), considered in tandem with the Home Office published policy, is that where the Home Office receives notification that an applicant has instructed a representative or has a new representative and the specified requirements are satisfied, the notification must be accepted and the Home Office internal records must be updated accordingly. (ii) Conversely, where the notification is rejected for non-compliance with any of the specified requirements, both the applicant and the representative must be informed….

25th October 2017 By Conor James McKinney

The First-tier Tribunal can re-open complaints determined by the OISC

The case of Visa Joy Ltd will be of interest to immigration advisers regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). The OISC makes sure that immigration advisers meet certain standards and are “fit and competent” to provide immigration advice and services. It will register as immigration advisers those considered “competent and otherwise fit to provide immigration advice and immigration services” (Schedule 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999). The OISC also has the power to cancel a person’s registration if it considers they are no longer competent or are otherwise unfit to provide immigration advice and services. Someone whose registration is cancelled may appeal to the…

24th October 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Upper Tribunal tackles “genuine entrepreneur” test

Nadeem Anjum applied for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa in early 2015. It was refused. The Entry Clearance Officer took the view, following an interview with Mr Anjum, that he was not a “genuine entrepreneur”. Since rights of appeal against Points Based System applications were removed, judicial consideration of the terms of the relevant rules has been comparatively rare. The last entrepreneur case reported in the Upper Tribunal, for instance, was over two and a half years ago: R (Zhang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (IJR) [2015] UKUT 138. The entry clearance decision Among the reasons for the original refusal were that, when asked specific questions about…

24th October 2017 By Nick Nason

Curtailment letters can be sent to an overseas address

The Upper Tribunal, in a case concerning service of a curtailment letter to an address in Bangladesh, has held that: (i) Where the Secretary of State relies on a curtailment notice as having been deemed to have been given by being placed “on file’ in accordance with article 8ZA(4) of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 (as amended) (“the 2000 Order”), it is for the Secretary of State to establish that that article applied. (ii) The Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 allows for the sending of a curtailment notice to an overseas address. In this case the Home Office held the claimant’s address in…

23rd October 2017 By Conor James McKinney

“Good deeds” immigration lawyer struck off over judicial reviews

An immigration lawyer praised for his “good deeds” among the Chinese community has been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Vay Sui Ip, a partner at Manchester firm Sandbrook Solicitors, was prosecuted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority over judicial reviews issued as a means of “frustrating deportations“. The tribunal, to cut a 96-page judgment short, agreed with the SRA that Mr Ip had breached various of its rules, chief among them that he had applied for judicial reviews that were “totally without merit” and “engaged in a systematic course of conduct designed to undermine the immigration system”. Other allegations were not proven. Referencing its duty to maintain the reputation…

17th October 2017 By Conor James McKinney

Tribunal criticises government lawyers for “trench warfare” mentality and “inappropriate” conduct

In one of his final judgments as outgoing President, Mr Justice McCloskey launched a bitter broadside at the conduct of government lawyers in long-running litigation over the entry of refugee children. While the criticism of the solicitors at the Government Legal Department and of previous barristers instructed for the Home Office is robust and unambiguous, the background is hard to discern from the judgment itself, which arises essentially as satellite litigation around the failure of the Home Office to comply with previous orders made by the tribunal. The case is R (on the application of AM and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (liberty to apply –…

9th October 2017 By Colin Yeo

Home Office launches new Assisted Digital service for online immigration applications

The Home Office has launched a new Assisted Digital service to help those who need it with online immigration applications. It is aimed at applicants who do not have the appropriate access, skills or confidence to complete an online immigration application form. The service does not offer immigration advice. The support available includes: Telephone support to complete the online form – you will be transferred to a skilled Migrant Help UK advisor who will help you complete your application form online. Face to face support at a library to access and complete the online form – you can either walk in at your convenience or book an appointed time with a…

25th September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Further guidance from Upper Tribunal on withdrawal of immigration appeals

Not much to say about this one, but clearly it is important in those cases where the Home Office does withdraw a decision once the appeal has been lodged. Official headnote: (i)            The public law character of appeals to the FtT is reflected in the regulatory requirement governing the withdrawal of appeals that any proposed withdrawal of an appeal must contain the reasons for the course mooted and must be judicially scrutinised, per rule 17 of the FtT Rules and rule 17 of the Upper Tribunal Rules. (ii)          Judicial evaluation of both the withdrawal of an appellant’s appeal and the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s case or…

22nd September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal can (but won’t) hold Home Office in contempt for ignoring consent orders

The facts of R (on the application of MMK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (consent orders – legal effect – enforcement) [2017] UKUT 198 (IAC) involved the not uncommon scenario of the Home Office withdrawing its decision in response to an application for judicial review, agreeing a consent order which included an agreement to pay the costs of the claimant and to make new decision be made within a certain time and then failing to comply with that consent order. As an aside, this is why the headline figures on success rates for applications for judicial review are so misleading: because a very significant number of claims are settled…

21st September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 continue to apply for appeals says tribunal

Pretty obscure looking at first glance, this one: TM (EEA nationals – meaning; NI practitioners : Zimbabwe) [2017] UKUT 165 (IAC). So much so I confess I overlooked it. Firstly, some dual national British-EEA nationals were protected from the UK’s arguably over zealous implementation of McCarthy. I’ve had to advise on this before and it is a very limited group. Secondly, and much more importantly to day to day practice. the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 are apparently preserved for appeals (or rights of appeal) already commenced on 1 February 2017, which was not the case when the 2006 regulations replaced the predecessor 2000 regulations (see MG and VC (EEA Regulations 2006; “conducive”…

19th September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Explainer: Can the Home Secretary really be guilty of contempt of court for breach of a court order?

The Home Office has been in the news for what one judge described as a “prima facie case of contempt of court.” Officials are reported to have breached multiple orders for the return of asylum seeker Samim Bigzad from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. Ultimately, though, in legal terms it is Home Secretary Amber Rudd who is responsible for those actions. It is unlikely she personally sanctioned breach of the order. Can she really be in contempt of court for the actions of one of her officials? At the time of writing there has been no finding of contempt of court in the case of Samim Bigzad. However, clear and deliberate…

18th September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Fee waiver policy: who qualifies and what does the Home Office policy say?

Fees for immigration applications continue to increase every year. Most applications for leave to remain submitted from the UK (other than under the Point Based System) cost £993. In addition, applicants may need to pay an Immigration Health Surcharge (usually £500). On average, therefore, an applicant will need to spend almost £1500 to get leave to remain in the UK. This is, in fact, the very bare minimum. One may also need to pay £150 to pass an English language test for applications where there is an English language requirement; £590 for the Premium Service Centre for those who simply cannot leave their passport with the Home Office for months;…

4th September 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Upper Tribunal provides guidance in cases of judicial bias

In Sivapatham (Appearance of Bias: Sri Lanka) [2017] UKUT 293 (IAC) (7 July 2017) frustrated novelist and president of the Upper Tribunal McCloskey J considers the law surrounding judicial bias in the tribunal. As with previous exponents of the art (see Denning LJ, or Moses LJ), judgments of the President are almost always entertaining on some level, written with eloquence and a sense of the dramatic, in ornate prose. This determination is no different, and brings together important guidance on the steps to be taken where judicial bias is alleged, and the relevant legal principles for a court hearing any such allegation. The Sivapatham allegations The particular facts of the…

18th August 2017 By Nick Nason

Study finds asylum judges fail to assist vulnerable appellants

Really interesting study, which should be carefully considered in the Immigration and Asylum Chambers. …There are clearly dangers to an overly rule-bound judicial approach, as conveyed by Conley and O’Barr’s (1988) description of ‘the proceduralist judge’ whose ‘high priority on maintaining procedural regularity’ (498) ‘may become condescending or sarcastic’ (500) and may present the law as ‘remote and inaccessible’ (502). Yet our findings raise concerns over the inequitable use of procedural discretion when it is afforded to judges. Substantive discretion – that is a judge’s freedom to reason and decide without encumbrance – is a different matter and a central requirement of judicial independence. We have demonstrated, however, that where…

15th August 2017 By Colin Yeo

How to correct a mistake in a country guidance case

What happens where the Upper Tribunal makes a mistake in a country guidance case? And in what circumstances will the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an Upper Tribunal decision that has already been remitted to the First Tier Tribunal? Both of these interesting issues crop up in AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 944. The Case of AA AA was an Iraqi who claimed asylum in the UK in 2009. His appeal has now been in the court system for over 8 years (and counting). The initial application was rejected and several appeals dismissed until AA benefited from…

14th August 2017 By Nick Nason

Virtual hearings to be trialled in immigration tribunal from October 2017

To make sure we reduce inconvenience and cost to our users and provide greater flexibility and access to our services, we must deal with cases in the most efficient and proportionate way. One of the ways in which we are doing this is the expansion of video and telephony links to provide remote access either into a physical court room or into the new design of a ‘virtual court room’. The use of video links already allows victims and vulnerable people to take part in criminal proceedings without having to meet the defendant face-to-face. Telephone conference technology is also already used (to a limited degree) to progress and manage cases…

11th August 2017 By Colin Yeo

New official Administrative Court judicial review guide for 2017

Detailed legal guidance on bringing a judicial review case in the Administrative Court.The July 2017 edition reflects legislative and practice changes relevant to the Administrative Court over the last year. Includes guidance on: starting a claim applying for permission for judicial review substantive hearings remedies case management specific practice points ending a claim costs appeals The guide also includes contact details for the court, information on forms and fees, and addresses for serving documents on government departments. Would be nice to see an equivalent for the Upper Tribunal, particularly as there are presumably far more litigants in person and the Upper Tribunal seems anxious about poor standards of legal representation….

9th August 2017 By Colin Yeo

How expensive are UK immigration applications and is this a problem?

The cost of making an immigration or nationality application has risen extremely steeply in recent years. Annual increases of 20% or 25% per year are now standard, bringing the current cost of an application for Indefinite Leave to Remain in 2017 to £2,297. The actual cost of processing such an application is £252, so the Home Office is generating considerable income from each application. As The Guardian reports, “profit margins” are as high as 800% for some types of application. The cost of settlement is only one of the last steps in a long journey of applications, though. The total costs of applying to enter the UK as a spouse,…

3rd August 2017 By Colin Yeo

When might an appeal continue even though Home Office withdraws the decision?

In the case of ZEI & Ors (Decision withdrawn – FtT Rule 17 – considerations : Palestine) [2017] UKUT 292 (IAC)  the Upper Tribunal, chaired by Mr Ockelton, has considered the application of rule 17 of the procedure rules. This rule provides that where the Home Office withdraws a decision which is under appeal, the appeal will normaly be treated as withdrawn: 17.—(1)    A party may give notice of the withdrawal of their appeal— (a)     by providing to the Tribunal a written notice of withdrawal of the appeal; or (b)     orally at a hearing, and in either case must specify the reasons for that withdrawal. (2)     The Tribunal must…

20th July 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal decides wasted costs orders cannot be made against Home Office representatives

In the case of Awuah and Others (Wasted Costs Orders – HOPOs – Tribunal Powers) [2017] UKFTT 555 (IAC) the tribunal has decided that a wasted costs order — an order that a representative personally pay the costs incurred by the other side because of poor personal conduct — cannot be made against a Home Office Presenting Officer. They can however still be made against representatives for appellants. This is not what one would describe as a level playing field on which the same rules and obligations apply to all players equally. The official headnote reads: (i)            The First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) is not empowered to make a Wasted Costs…

19th July 2017 By Colin Yeo

When wrongly denied a right of appeal, the solution is to appeal

The nature of applications which attract a right of appeal have been greatly restricted by the Immigration Act 2014. In summary, only refused human rights applications, or applications for protection, are appealable. All other applications can be challenged by way of Judicial Review or administrative review only. What is the position of individuals who argue, however, that they were wrongly denied a right of appeal? In the case of Saqib Zia Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 424, the Court of Appeal found that the appropriate forum to challenge these decisions is the First-Tier Tribunal. Background The procedural history of the case is complex, but…

18th July 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Guidance issued on renewal applications following non-admittance by the Upper Tribunal

The case of KM (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 437 (21 June 2017) raises an interesting, if niche, procedural point. The case is relevant to parties who have had an appeal dismissed by the Upper Tribunal (UT); who wish to challenge the findings of the UT on a point of law; but who miss the deadline to make the application for permission to appeal against the determination to the Court of Appeal so that the application is not admitted; and wish to renew their applications directly to the Court of Appeal In this case the Court of Appeal gives guidance on how and…

4th July 2017 By Nick Nason

Test cases on automatic strike out of claims lead to changes at the Upper Tribunal

Many immigration practitioners will have fallen foul of the surprisingly strict approach the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) has, until recently, taken when it comes to the provision of form T485 (the UT equivalent of the Administrative Court’s Certificate of Service) within nine days of issuing a claim for judicial review in the UT, as required by Rule 28A (2)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 as amended (“the UT Rules”). The Administrative Court has a practice of writing to a Claimant querying the lack of a Certificate of Service before taking any steps leading to the dismissal of a claim. Provided that the Claimant had actually served the Defendant within the…

30th June 2017 By Kate Newman

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

Zimbabwean national unlawfully detained after Home Office fails to serve immigration decision

Substantial damages of £10,500 have been awarded to a claimant who was unlawfully detained for a period of 70 days. The Home Office had failed to serve the Claimant with notice of a decision on his application to vary his leave to remain in the UK before detaining him, rendering his detention unlawful. The case is R (on the application of) Godwin Chaparadza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1209 (Admin). Background The Claimant, a Zimbabwean national, entered the UK on 5 September 2004 with leave to remain as a student. His leave to remain was extended on a number of occasions, the last such extension…

7th June 2017 By Rebecca Carr

When must the tribunal allow appeals against Home Office decisions containing errors of law?

Where the Secretary of State makes an error of law in a decision which is then appealed to the tribunal, does the tribunal have to allow that appeal on the basis that the decision contains an error of law? Not unless the decision as a whole is unlawful, finds the Court of Appeal in Singh (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 362 (24 May 2017). Case outline Mr. Singh’s case was weak. He arrived in 2001 as a visitor for 6 months. He overstayed, and later made two Hail Mary applications in 2010 and 2012 to regularise his stay based on, apparently, little more…

5th June 2017 By Nick Nason

No human rights issues to be raised in EEA appeals, confirms Court of Appeal

In September 2015, the Upper Tribunal decided the case of Amirteymour and others (EEA appeals; human rights) [2015] UKUT 466 (IAC). The decision states that if an appeal is brought in the First-Tier Tribunal against an EEA decision then the only relevant issues that can be raised during the appeal are those directly connected to that EEA decision. Human rights issues, the Upper Tribunal ruled, were not justiciable. This case was covered at the time by Free Movement, where several issues were raised in respect of the reasoning of the tribunal, and the policy of attempting to artificially distinguish between European law rights and other rights guaranteed under domestic human rights…

19th May 2017 By Nick Nason

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

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

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada guidelines on cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression

1.1 The purpose of this Guideline is to promote greater understanding of cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE) and the harm individuals may face due to their non-conformity with socially accepted SOGIE norms. This Guideline addresses the particular challenges individuals with diverse SOGIE may face in presenting their cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) and establishes guiding principles for decision-makers in adjudicating cases involving SOGIE. 1.2 This Guideline applies to all four divisions of the IRB, namely, the Immigration Division (ID), the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). 1.3 This Guideline applies to…

8th May 2017 By Colin Yeo
1 2 3 4 5 6 7