1 2 3 4 5 6 7

“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

How we overturned Sala in the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal (Etherton MR, Longmore LJ, Irwin LJ) heard the appeal against the findings in Sala yesterday. Those findings, briefly, are that by virtue of the discretion available to a decision-maker under regulation 17 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006, a decision on an application under regulation 8 is not a decision which concerns the applicant’s entitlement to be issued with a residence card. Therefore it is not an “EEA decision” under regulation 2 and so is not appealable under regulation 26. Our position for the appellant was the same as the appellant’s position in Sala: that the regulations provide a right of appeal against an adverse decision on…

13th October 2017 By Rajiv Sharma

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 (11 July 2017). 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…

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

Waiting time in the immigration tribunal now 83 weeks for some appeals

The latest tribunal statistics, published in March 2017, show that the average waiting time for appeals to be heard in the immigration tribunal is now 48 weeks. This is the time between the appeal being lodged and the appeal being promulgated, I understand. The breakdown for different types of appeal reveals major disparities between different types of appeal, though, with waiting times for entry clearance appeals — for example for spouses or children applying to join family members in the UK — as high as 83 weeks. That is over a year and a half. With 51% of all entry clearance appeals being allowed in Q3 2016, that is a very…

5th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Guidance from tribunal on strike out powers and appeal to Court of Appeal as remedy

Official headnote: (i) A decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing to exercise its power to reinstate a judicial review claim which has been struck out may be the subject of an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. (ii) Such a decision, given its nature and consequences, is not to be equated with a mere case management decision. (iii) Every decision upon an application to reinstate must give effect to the overriding objective. (iv) Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provides the only mechanism for challenging a strike out order. Rule 43 has no application in this context. The directions in these and…

4th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Home Office application to delay Calais Jungle child asylum case refused by tribunal

In an oral decision in the case of R (on the application of AO & AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (stay of proceedings – principles) [2017] UKUT 168 (IAC) given on 28 March 2017, the Upper Tribunal refused the Secretary of State’s application to stay the Judicial Review proceedings of AO and AM, two unaccompanied minors previously in the Calais Jungle, and who had been refused their transfer to the UK under the expedited Dublin III process. In the decision Mr Justice McCloskey, President of the Upper Tribunal, offers very useful and interesting guidance on the principles to be followed in applications to stay proceedings pending…

3rd May 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Calling evidence “self serving” not sufficient reason for disregarding it

Official headnote: (1) The expression “self-serving” is, to a large extent, a protean one. The expression itself tells us little or nothing. What is needed is a reason, however brief, for that designation. For example, a letter written by a third party to an applicant for international protection may be “self-serving” because it bears the hallmarks of being written to order, in circumstances where the applicant’s case is that the letter was a spontaneous warning. (2) Whilst a statement from a family member is capable of lending weight to a claim, the issue will be whether, looked at in the round, it does so in the particular case in question….

26th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

New guidance on validity, variation and withdrawal of immigration applications

Looks like an unusually helpful guide to the technical aspects of immigration applications: This guidance is for decision makers and describes how to decide whether an application for leave to remain in the UK is valid, and what to do if it is not. It also describes how an applicant can vary and withdraw an application and how to calculate the date of application. Source: Applications for leave to remain: validation, variation and withdrawal – GOV.UK

11th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Another massive increase in immigration and nationality application fees for 2017-18

New fees for immigration and nationality applications come into effect on 6 April 2017. The changes include an increase of 18% in settlement (ILR) applications to £2,297 and dependent relative applications to a huge £3,250. Meanwhile, naturalisation fees have been held at “only” a 4% increase to £1,202, compared to a 25% increase last year. This is all before the Immigration Health Surcharge is added to the cost of an application, which costs £200 per year per migrant for all limited leave visas other than visits (£120 for students). Many suspect the Home Office makes a hefty profit on these fees. They are correct. The actual cost of processing an…

4th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

When is it reasonable to require British citizen children to leave Britain?

Two interesting and important legal points emerge from the Upper Tribunal’s determination in SF and others (Guidance, post-2014 Act) [2017] UKUT 120 (IAC). The first is on the issue of when, if at all, a British child might be required by immigration policy to leave the UK and the second is how far, if at all, the tribunal might take account of policies of the Secretary of State under the new appeals regime established by the Immigration Act 2014. Reasonableness of requiring a British child to leave UK It turns out that the Secretary of State’s policy is that it is never reasonable to require a British citizen child to…

29th March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Law Society Practice Note on Legal Professional Privilege

Well worth a read. This practice note seeks to: clarify the status of legal professional privilege (LPP) explore recent concerns about how the right has been asserted summarise practitioners’ duties clarify the main principles of LPP LPP protects all communications between a solicitor or barrister and his or her clients from being revealed without the permission of the client. LPP is one of the highest rights recognised by English law. It arises when clients approach lawyers for legal advice or for assistance with resolving contentious issues. LPP, which has existed for over 400 years, is treated under English law as a fundamental common law right and as a human right….

8th March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Immigration solicitor fined £10,000 for signing off “grossly misleading and inaccurate” court documents

The Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal has fined an immigration solicitor £10,000 for signing off “grossly misleading and inaccurate” statements of truth for judicial review applications. The solicitor concerned, Achyuth Rajagopal of G Singh Solicitors in London, admitted acting recklessly and in a manner apt to mislead the tribunal and failing adequately to supervise the work of the paralegal employee who prepared the applications. The paralegal was not named and had left the firm immediately after the behaviour came to light. Essentially, the unsupervised paralegal was using totally templated judicial review applications irrespective of the facts of the cases. Nine cases were uncovered by the Government Legal Department and the firm admitted…

7th March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal on recorded video evidence and Article 8 considerations

Official headnote to Lama (video recorded evidence -weight – Art 8 ECHR : Nepal) [2017] UKUT 16 (IAC): (i) Video recorded evidence from witnesses is admissible in the Upper Tribunal. Its weight will vary according to the context. (ii) Alertness among practitioners and parties to the Upper Tribunal’s standard pre-hearing Directions and compliance therewith are crucial. (iii) There are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes family life within the compass of Article 8 ECHR. (iv) A person’s value to the community is a factor which may legitimately be considered in the Article 8 proportionality balancing exercise. Pre-recorded video would be particularly useful for an entry clearance appeal, it is worth pointing out….

2nd March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Home Office is obliged to serve relevant policy documents otherwise hearing is unfair

Lord Justice Irwin gives the leading judgment in UB (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 85, in which the Home Office failed to serve a relevant policy document during an appeal: 16. In my view there was the clearest obligation on the Secretary of State to serve relevant material and ensure it was before the Tribunals at both levels. In AA (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 12, Keene LJ made the point clear beyond doubt: “27. [It was submitted by the appellant that] the attention of the adjudicator should have been drawn by the Secretary of State’s representative to the policy on…

1st March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Upper Tribunal encourages parties to reach agreement on costs. Or else.

Potentially useful case when seeking to agree costs in good time. The official headnote: Where judicial review proceedings are resolved by settlement, the parties are responsible for doing all they can to agree costs, both as to liability and amount, rather than leaving this to the decision of the Tribunal, which is likely to carry its own penalty. And from the admirably succinct judgment: 5. I should like at this point to draw both parties’ attention to what Stanley Burnton LJ said at paragraphs 75 – 77 of the Croydon decision: there are too many cases in which courts, or now this Tribunal, are left to decide the question of costs, because the parties…

23rd February 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal case on lapsing, cancelling and revoking ILR

i) Article 13 of the Immigration (Leave to enter and Remain) Order 2000/1161 (the “2000 Order”) applies to holders of indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”) who travel to a country or territory outside the common travel area so that their ILR does not lapse but continues if Article 13(2)-(4) are satisfied. ii) If the leave of such an individual continues pursuant to Article 13(2)-(4) of the 2000 Order, an immigration officer has power to cancel their ILR upon their arrival in the United Kingdom. iii) The grounds upon which such leave may be cancelled are set out at para 321A of the Immigration Rules. iv) Section 76 of the Nationality,…

23rd February 2017 By Colin Yeo
1 2 3 4 5 6 7