Edgehill, Halumudeen, Singh and now Islam on commencement of rule changes

Case of R (On the Application Of Islam) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 312 (27 March 2015) on Edgehill, Halumudeen, Singh etc etc: More Edgehill, Halumudeen, Singh 9/7/12 hokey pokey bollocks. How does this stuff reach the Court of Appeal? Strewth. http://t.co/BaeBUzP4dv — Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) March 27, 2015

Court of Appeal condemns complexity of Points Based System

The Court of Appeal condemns the complexity of the Points Based System in the case of Hossain & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 207. Lord Justice Beatson says at paragraph 30: The detail, the number of documents that have to be consulted, the number of changes in rules […]

Meaning of “false” document and the difference between visiting and inspecting

In Begum (false documents and false statements) [2015] UKUT 00041 (IAC) we are educated by the tribunal as to the difference between a “visit” and an “inspection” and the blameless appellant is refused entry and perhaps banned from further entry for 10 years. Some might think the case just a little harsh. An professional inspector […]

LexisPSL analysis of most recent Immigration Rule changes

Free, excellent and detailed analysis, highly recommended reading. The change to the definition of overstaying and the new invalid application provisions are particularly important in general casework, the administrative review process is explained and there is detailed analysis of changes to a significant number of immigration categories, including visitors, business visitors, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier […]

Visa denied

This should be made mandatory reading for all Home Office immigration employees. Apparently it was trending on Twitter in Kenya it has struck such a chord. UPDATE: Mr Biko has been offered a meeting at the British High Commission.

Conditional discharge is not a conviction. Duh.

Omenma (Conditional discharge – not a conviction of an offence) [2014] UKUT 314 (IAC) is an interesting case for two reasons. Firstly, the Home Office accepted that the decision was wrong and withdrew it. Nevertheless, because the case had reached the Upper Tribunal, the withdrawal of decision did not automatically deprive the Upper Tribunal of jurisdiction, […]