Sanaz Saifolahi

Sanaz has practised in the field of immigration law for over 13 years. She is well regarded for her thorough case preparation, effective advocacy and personable nature. Sanaz is also an assessor for the Law Society ‘Immigration Law Advanced’ Accreditation Scheme.

Reference made to CJEU on rights of appeal for extended family members

Anthony Metzer QC led Sanaz Saifolahi, on behalf of the Respondent, before the President of the Upper Tribunal, Mr Justice McCloskey, on the application of the Surinder Singh rationale to the unmarried partner of a British National. There are currently no reported cases on this issue. The Respondent is in a longstanding durable relationship with a British National. The couple had previously lived in The Netherlands before returning to the UK. The Respondent then applied for a Residence Card relying on Surinder Singh.   The Secretary of State for the Home Department (now the Appellant) refused to grant a Residence Card, on the basis that Regulation 9 of the Immigration (EEA)…

29th March 2017 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Will the real Article 8 please stand up!

In the reported case of Green (Article 8 – new rules) [2013] UKUT 254 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal again reaffirmed that despite the Immigration Rules pertaining to incorporate Article 8, tribunals should continue to consider the substantive Article 8 claim even if the Immigration Rules cannot be met. The official head note of Green states: ​(1) In Nagre v SSHD [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) the Administrative Court approved the guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Izuazu [2013] UKUT 45 (IAC) in turn endorsing the two stage approach recommended by the Upper Tribunal in MF (Article 8 – new rules) Nigeria [2012] UKUT 393 (IAC). Sales J added the proviso that…

19th June 2013 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Tanveer Ahmed upheld

In the case of MJ (Singh v Belgium : Tanveer Ahmed (unaffected) Afghanistan [2013] UKUT 253 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal found: The conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights in Singh v Belgium (Application No. 33210/2011) neither justify nor require any departure from the guidance set out in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] Imm AR 318 (starred). The Tribunal in Tanveer Ahmed envisaged the existence of particular cases where it may be appropriate for enquiries to be made.  On its facts Singh can properly be regarded as such a particular case.  The documentation in that case was clearly of a nature where verification would be easy, and the documentation came from an unimpeachable source….

17th June 2013 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Marriage and civil partnerships inspection report

The latest report by John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, was published this week. It concerns applications to enter, remain and settle in the UK on the basis of marriage and civil partnerships and the summary of recommendations is that the UK Border Agency: Assesses all relevant aspects of the Immigration Rules in marriage cases and ensures that this is done in a consistent manner. Ensures that Human Rights are considered consistently in all relevant cases, including overseas applications. Ensures that reasons for its decisions under both the Immigration Rules and Human Rights are properly evidenced, recorded and communicated to applicants. Ensures that the best interests of…

31st January 2013 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Post Study Work and s.85A: applications continue until decided

The very recent reported case of Khatel and others (s85A; effect of continuing application) Nepal [2013] UKUT 44 (IAC) consolidates the on going issues in relation to Points Based System Tier 1 Post Study Work applications: the date of the award and whether or not the Tribunal can consider evidence submitted after the application was submitted but before a decision was made by the UK Border Agency by virtue of section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended). Following the case of AQ (Pakistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 833, where the SSHD accepted that the relevant date for the assessment of evidence adduced in an application…

30th January 2013 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Two sides of the same coin

Following on from the case of Ahmadi ( s. 47 decision: validity; Sapkota) [2012] UKUT 00147 (IAC)  the Upper Tribunal has (for now) resolved the perplexing issue of what to do when the Secretary of State combines a refusal to vary leave with a Section 47 removal.  This issue is thrashed out in the case of Adamally and Jaferi (section 47 removal decisions: Tribunal Procedures) [2012] UKUT 00414 (IAC). The official head note in Adamally and Jaferi states: When a removal decision purportedly under s 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is made concurrently with a decision refusing further leave: (i)             the s 47 decision is unlawful,…

29th November 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

“A series of small omissions and unfortunate developments…”

The reported Upper Tribunal case of Kalidas (agreed facts – best practice) [2012] UKUT 00327 (IAC) underscores some important points of practice and procedure in the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The case concerned an appeal before the FTT where it appears to have been agreed between the Appellant and Respondent representatives that credibility was not in issue. The issues to be determined in the appeal were sufficiency of protection and internal flight. The issues were ‘narrowed’ at an oral CMRH. The Upper Tribunal refers to the Judge’s note. The Judge’s note was a bit vague. Neither representative was provided with written confirmation of this agreement of the facts at the…

23rd November 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Iranian dissidents awarded Sakharov Prize

Imprisoned lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh and banned film maker Jafar Panahi have been awarded the Sakharav Prize. The Sakharav Prize, named after the Soviet scientist and dissident, is an annual prize, awarded by the European Parliament to individuals or organisations fighting for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nasrin Sotoudeh is currently serving a six year prison sentence in the notorious Evin prison for “acting against national security” and “propaganda against the regime”. Sotoudeh has represented imprisoned opposition activists. Banned film maker Jafar Panahi, well known for his documentary “This is not a film” has been under house arrest since 2010. Panahi’s film was smuggled out of Iran hidden in a cake….

2nd November 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Evidential flexibility policy revealed

Further to Sarah Pinder’s earlier post on this subject, I have been provided with a copy of the infamous “PBS PROCESS INSTRUCTION EVIDENTIAL FLEXIBILITY” document in response to a Freedom of Information Request. I am very grateful to Jane Heybroek [ed. valued occasional blog commenter!] for sharing it. A copy of the document itself appears here and the FOI request here. Many of us have argued about the existence of this policy in the context of Points Based System appeals for some time now.  We have been able to point to various sources to confirm that there is such a policy, but not to any document outlining the details of it and also the…

30th July 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

New Immigration Rules brought in immediately

Following the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Munir and Alvi, as reported on this blog yesterday, the UK Border Agency has acted suspiciouslyextremely quickly: see the Statement of Changes CM 8423 dated 19 July 2012, to come into force on 20 July 2012. All 296 pages of it. See also Hansard HC 18 July 2012 Col WS49, for the Statement of Lord Henley, the Minister of State (Home Office): We recognise the complexity of the system and we will therefore undertake a more substantial review of the rules and consider how they can be simplified. The Migration Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the Codes of Practice which this judgment requires are…

19th July 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Genuine visitor: relevant and irrelevant considerations

In the reported case of Sawmynaden (Family visitors – considerations) [2012] UKUT 00161 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal outline a number of factors relevant to the assessment of “genuine visitor”. In Sawmynaden, the appellant had travelled to the UK on a number of occasions since 2001 in order to visit her daughter.  The appellant had stayed for a period of 172 days on her last visit to the UK in 2010. This had been within the period she was legally permitted to stay, but nevertheless the ECO refused the application, partly on the grounds that the appellant had spent too much time visiting the UK. First-tier Tribunal Judge TRP Hollingworth, in…

22nd May 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Allegations of Judges misconduct: proof needed, of course….

The Vice President of the Upper Tribunal has recently provided guidance applicable to cases where a party is alleging misconduct by a Judge. In the recently reported case of Azia (proof of misconduct by judge) [2012] UKUT 00096 (IAC) the official head note states: A party alleging misconduct by a judge needs to prove it. Parties and their representatives need to ensure that the evidence is collected while memories are fresh. Permission to call evidence before the Upper Tribunal may be refused where, in circumstances where a party has not acted promptly to prepare and disclose evidence, it would be unfair to the other party, or not in the interests…

24th April 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

The Upper Tribunal, Maslov and the public interest

Further guidance has been reported which is applicable to deportation appeals raising Article 8.   In Masih (deportation – public interest – basic principles) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 00046 (IAC) the official head note reads as follows: The following basic principles can be derived from the present case law concerning the issue of the public interest in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals: (a)       In a case of automatic deportation, full account must be taken of the strong public interest in removing foreign citizens  convicted of serious offences, which lies not only in the prevention of further offences on the part of the individual concerned, but in deterring others from committing them in…

27th February 2012 By Sanaz Saifolahi

Tribunal’s view on Sapkota

The Upper Tribunal haven’t hung around in turning their attention to the recent case of Sapkota v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1320, which was only reported here on the blog three weeks ago. They have also reviewed the authorities leading up to Sapkota and have outlined guidance for the tribunal when dealing with cases where Sapkota points are raised and/or may be applicable. The official headnote to Patel (consideration of Sapkota – unfairness) India [2011] UKUT 00484 (IAC) reads as follows: (1) There is no substantive segregation of considerations going to an extension of stay and removal where the appellant seeks leave to remain outside the rules on 395C…

21st December 2011 By Sanaz Saifolahi