1 2 3 4 5 6 9

A genuine couple can enter in a marriage of convenience, says High Court

A couple may enter into a “marriage of convenience”, even if they are in a genuine relationship. This was, in summary, the finding of the High Court in the case of Molina, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1730 (Admin). Background The Appellant, Mr Molina is a Bolivian national. He entered the UK illegally in April 2007 using a false Bolivian passport. In April 2013, he met an Italian national, Ms Salguero, and they entered in a relationship in October 2013. They moved in together in September 2014 and planned to get married on 19 May 2015. On 26 February…

16th August 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Article 3 and the extradition of a British national to Taiwan

The Supreme Court in the case of the Lord Advocate (representing the Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) (Appellant) v Dean (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 44 considered the first occasion on which Taiwan has sought to extradite a British national. On appeal from the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary (‘the Appeal Court’) the Supreme Court considered the correct test for Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) within extradition cases and, in doing so, it reviewed the prison conditions that may reach the Article 3 threshold. This case may extend beyond extradition cases and could be useful guidance for other cases including…

11th August 2017 By Chris Desira

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

Supreme Court confirms that burden for proving marriage of convenience rests with Home Office

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in the case of Sadovska and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 54. In unanimously allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof of establishing a ‘marriage of convenience’ falls on the Home Office. The court therefore concurred with the previous rulings of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Rosa v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 14 and Agho v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1198 The Appellants are Ms Sadovska, a Lithuanian national, and Mr Malik, a Pakistani national. Ms Sadovska, having lived and…

26th July 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

When will a foreign adoption be recognised in common law for immigration purposes?

In W v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1733 (Fam) (07 July 2017) a married couple resident in the UK on a Tier 2 visa attempted to bring their 2-year-old adoptive son, V, to join them from Nigeria. The application they made for him to enter as a Points Based System dependent was rejected after the Secretary of State refused to recognise the currency of the Nigerian adoption document. As the couple were unable to satisfy any of the available statutory routes to demonstrate the adoption in the UK, the only option available was to apply for recognition of the adoption at common law. Such an order would have the same effect…

25th July 2017 By Nick Nason

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

£48,000 damages awarded to torture survivor for injuries suffered during deportation attempt

Following a seven-day hearing in the High Court, Mr Felix Wamala, a Ugandan national, was awarded £48,000 in damages for the actions of private security guards contracted by the Home Office in seeking to remove him from the UK. This is the case of Wamala v Tascor Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1461. The judgment is a mammoth one, weighing in at 558 paragraphs plus annexes. Mr Wamala’s claim concerned the use of force, and the threatened use of force, against him by employees of Reliance, now known as Tascor Services Ltd. Tascor is a subsidiary of Capita. As they say on their website: As part of Capita PLC, we have the…

17th 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

Upper Tribunal rules it unsafe to return anyone to Libya

The violence in Libya has reached such a high level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a returning civilian would, solely on account of his presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to a threat to his life or person. This is the country guidance the Upper Tribunal gave in the case of ZMM (Article 15(c)) Libya CG [2017] UKUT 263 (IAC), overturning the earlier country guidance of AT and Others (Article 15c; risk categories) (CG) [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC). The Tribunal gave country guidance on the following issues: Is the Appellant at risk under Article 15(c) if returned to Libya?…

3rd July 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

European Court of Human Rights finds vulnerable Zimbabwean national unlawfully detained by Home Office

In a recent decision from Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights has found the UK Home Office unlawfully detained a Zimbabwean national. The Court found that the UK authorities had failed to act with sufficient “due diligence” in progressing the Applicant’s case, leading to him being detained for over two and a half years in an immigration removal centre. The case is S.M.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 77450/12). Background The applicant was born in Zimbabwe. He arrived in the UK in May 2001 and was granted six months’ leave to enter as a visitor. Fast forward to 2007, (a few driving offences and a failed asylum claim…

3rd July 2017 By Rebecca Carr

Self-employed workers do not have the same rights as employees under EU law, confirms the Court of Appeal

In the case of Hrabkova v Secretary of State for Work and Pension [2017] EWCA Civ 794, the Court of Appeal confirmed once again that self-employed individuals do not have the same rights as workers under EU law. The specific question in this case was whether a person with a child at school who had been self employed and ceased work might be entitled to claim Employment Support Allowance. Some legal background It might be useful to start by setting out the law underpinning this case. By virtue of Article 10 of the EU Regulation 492/2011, the child of an EEA national who works or has worked in the UK…

2nd July 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

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

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

UK unlawfully denies transfer to UK of refugees living for 18 years in Cyprus British Sovereign Base

R (Bashir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 397 The British Sovereign Base Areas (“SBAs”) are small British-run areas on the Cyprus islands that survived the former colony’s independence. The Home Office has taken the position for a number of years that the Refugee Convention does not apply there. The Court of Appeal has unanimously held that in doing so, then-Home Secretary Theresa May acted unlawfully in denying refugees from the SBAs access to the UK. Background facts The claimants had been rescued from a fishing boat in the Mediterranean in 1998. They had been taken to one of the British Sovereign Base Areas in…

6th June 2017 By Thomas Beamont

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

Can a person granted subsidiary protection be transferred under Dublin III?

Case C-36/17: Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland The EU does not want asylum seekers to ‘shop around’ its Member States. To this end, various Regulations exist to prevent someone who has already claimed asylum in one Member State from subsequently doing so in another. But what if an applicant has claimed before, the result of which was being granted not refugee status, but subsidiary protection (‘humanitarian protection’ in the UK)? The CJEU has replied to a reference from the German administrative court to deliver its answer. Background facts The applicant claimed asylum in Germany. The German authorities found that he had previously claimed asylum in Italy. His application in…

1st June 2017 By Thomas Beamont

UK wrong to deny residence rights for non-EEA family members of dual nationals

The question about what rights are enjoyed by an EU citizen who naturalises as a British citizen becoming a dual citizen is critically important in the context of Brexit. We previously gave some context on why the UK denies dual citizens’ rights under EU law and why many lawyers believe that approach is wrong. This issue was put to the Court of Justice in the case of Lounes C-165/16 has now received a formal Opinion by the Advocate-General suggesting that the UK was wrong to deny EU rights to dual citizens and their family members. Advocate General Opinions The Court of Justice interprets EU law to make sure it is…

31st May 2017 By Chris Desira

Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to rules on Adult Dependent Relatives

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the challenge brought by campaign group Britcits to the restrictive Immigration Rules on the admission to the UK of parents, grandparents and other adult dependent relatives. The case is BRITCITS v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 368. On 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules on parents, grandparents and other dependent relatives were fundamentally changed, making it virtually impossible for them to be admitted to the UK to join a carer. The main stumbling blocks are these paragraphs from Appendix FM: E-ECDR.2.4. The applicant or, if the applicant and their partner are the sponsor’s parents or grandparents, the applicant’s partner, must…

30th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Indefinite detention does not breach ECHR says European Court of Human Rights

Arben Draga v United Kingdom (Application no. 33341/13) Unlike most other European countries, there is no time limit on immigration detention in the UK. In addition, the law does not provide for an automatic judicial review of the lawfulness of detention. Instead, detainees must proactively challenge the lawfulness of their detention. In an admissibility decision of 18 May 2017, the European Court of Human Rights found that this system does not violate the European Convention of Human Rights, an in particular article 5 on the right to liberty. Factual background Arben Draga is a Kosovan national residing in the UK. He was granted refugee status and indefinite leave to remain in December 2001….

30th May 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Country guidance issued between hearing and promulgation will still bind tribunal

Is the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) bound to take into account a Country Guidance (CG) case that is issued by the Upper Tribunal after the date of the FTT hearing, and after the date the FTT judge signs the determination, but before that determination is promulgated? The short answer, in general, and for the very unfortunate appellant in NA (Libya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 143, is yes. Timeline The Libyan appellant in this case had been refused asylum and appealed against the decision to the tribunal. The appeal was heard by the FTT and allowed. The decision was made on the basis of information…

26th May 2017 By Nick Nason

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

UK law found to be more generous than EU law for jobseekers acquiring permanent residence

The case of GE v. SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 145 (ACC) sets out how the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (since replaced with the 2016 version), are in some areas, more generous than EU law itself by concluding that an initial right of residence or status as a job-seeker could count towards permanent residence for an EEA national. Background The case is a decision of the Upper Tribunal relating to the entitlement of an EEA benefit claimant to Employment Support Allowance (ESA). The facts of the case will not be of significance in the immigration field, except to note that it was important to establish the EEA nationals statuses…

22nd May 2017 By Chris Desira

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

Coruscating criticism by President of Home Office behaviour in refugee family reunion case

To summarise, figuratively the Secretary of State does not have a leg upon which to stand either factually or legally. These were the words used by Mr Justice McCloskey, president of the Upper Tribunal, in the judicial review case of Mohamed Al-Anizy. Needless saying, he was not very impressed by the Secretary of State´s behaviour, in this case in relation to her application (or, rather, non-application) of its guidance on family reunion for refugees. Background of the case The Applicant, Mr Al-Anizy, is a husband and father of four children, aged between 3 and 10 years old. The family are Kuwaiti Bidoons. The Kuwaiti authorities issued a warrant of arrest…

19th May 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Capparrelli (EEA Nationals – British Nationality) [2017] UKUT 162 (IAC) -Comment by Ian Macdonald QC

Ian Macdonald QC has sent in an interesting note on the controversial Capparrelli determination. For background, see original Free Movement write up here: Tribunal finds Home Office has wrongly issued British passports to EU citizens and their children. Section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (the “1981 Act”), the subject matter whereof is “Acquisition by birth or adoption”, provides: “(1) A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement, or in a qualifying territory on or after the appointed day, shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is— … (b) settled in the United Kingdom or that territory.” Section 1 came…

18th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal gives guidance on general principles in deprivation of citizenship appeals

Interesting case on deprivation of citizenship, not least as the Home Office spectacularly messed up by refusing on an unjustifiable grounds when there was a justifiable one staring them in the face. Official headnote: (i) The Secretary of State has two separate powers of deprivation, exercisable on different grounds, as set out in sub-ss (2) and (3) of s 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. (ii) The power under s 40(2) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. (iii) The power under sub-s (3) arises only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that registration or naturalisation was obtained…

17th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

New CJEU case extends Zambrano rights of residence, emphasises best interests of children

In a new case, Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Netherlands C-133/15, the Court of Justice of the European Union has significantly extended Zambrano rights beyond those so far recognised by the Home Office and UK courts. The case offers far better guidance than was available in previous cases and emphasises that the impact on children is a primary consideration. Background The case involved seven mothers who had applied to the Dutch authorities for residence on the basis of being the primary carers of young Dutch children. They had all been refused residency because it was said that the fathers of the children could care for them, and therefore the children would not…

16th May 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal says foreign law is a question of fact normally determined by expert evidence

The Home Office proposed to remove the father of a family and three children to India and the wife and mother to Pakistan, thus separating the family. The family argued that they would be permanently separated because the immigration laws of India would not allow entry for the mother. The Home Office argued to the contrary, but the evidence on which the Home Office arguments was based was found to be, um, a bit flawed: It follows that the cornerstone of the Secretary of State’s case crumbles and collapses. The main pillar upon which the Secretary of State has sought to justify the impugned removal decisions has been shown to be devoid…

15th 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

Home Office unlawfully relies on Albania guidance for five years

LC (Albania)  v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 340 The Home Office has relied on outdated guidance to determine asylum applications from Albanian nationals, the Court of Appeal has held. The judgment in LC (Albania) will have far-reaching effects for those people denied protection under bad law over a number of years. The judgment also reiterates the approach to be taken when considering the future behaviour of asylum applicants if they return to their home country. Asylum claims based on sexuality Guidance for determining asylum applications on sexuality identity grounds was articulated in HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31 (“HJ (Iran)”)….

12th May 2017 By Thomas Beamont

Another successful unlawful detention claim

R (Ademiluyi) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 935 (Admin) concerns a successful claim for damages by an individual unlawfully detained under immigration powers. It is notable for its restatement of the importance of the third Hardial Singh principle, and as a further example of the Secretary of State’s ‘enduring casualness’ [23] when dealing with cases involving immigration detention. Facts On 26 October 2015, Mr. Ademiluyi’s custodial sentence came to an end. He had served time for immigration-related offences, and in particular possession of a false passport, entering a sham marriage and bigamy. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) had some months previously notified Mr. Ademiluyi that she intended…

9th May 2017 By Nick Nason

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

Strasbourg rules on state obligations towards trafficked persons

Chowdury and Others v Greece (Application number 21884/15 – the judgment is only available in French. An English-language press summary is available.) The European Court of Human Rights has found that strawberry-pickers in Greece were subjected to forced labour. The Court found that the authorities failed to prevent forced labour and protect the migrant workers. The case raises novel points about the scope of the right not to be subjected to forced labour, and the state’s obligations to investigate potential instances of forced labour and trafficking. The facts The applicants in this case are 42 Bangladeshi men who worked on a strawberry farm in Nea Manolada, Greece from 2012-2013. They…

2nd May 2017 By Thomas Beamont

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

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
1 2 3 4 5 6 9