A familiar nemesis: the Court of Appeal on “insurmountable obstacles”

R (Mudibo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1949 is yet another decision of the Court of Appeal grappling with the provisions of those familiar nemeses, section 117B and the “insurmountable obstacles” test in EX.1 of Appendix FM. Much of the judgment is unremarkable with the usual mentioning of “precariousness”, “public interest” and “exceptional circumstances”. That said, the facts differ from the usual cases in this area. Ms Mudibo was a Tanzanian national who had been residing in the UK since 2004, having initially entered as a visitor and never left. An application for leave to remain on the basis of family life with her husband was refused…

6th December 2017 By Bilaal Shabbir

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

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

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

Resolving a “difference in views” between EU members over benefits

Where there is a “difference in views” between two European Union member states about which is required to pay a benefit to a claimant, EU law requires the state in which the claimant resides to make interim payments until the dispute is resolved. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Fileccia [2017] EWCA Civ 1907 concerned a “difference in views” between the UK and France, despite which the UK failed to make interim payments to Mr Fileccia for over four years. Falling between the cracks Article 6(2) of Regulation 987/2009 implements Regulation 883/2004. The latter law is concerned with the co-ordination of social security systems across the European Union and…

29th November 2017 By John Vassiliou

Court of Appeal re-affirms country guidance cases are not box ticking

In FY (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1853, the Court of Appeal refused the deportation of a Somali national on the basis that he would face a real risk of living in circumstances falling below the Article 3 threshold if deported. In doing so, the Court of Appeal re-affirmed that country guidance cases should be construed sensibly. A tribunal’s findings should not be set aside for failing to treat the considerations as a tick box exercise. The judgment itself was short and sharp, with the Court of Appeal showing a distinct dislike for some of the Secretary of State’s arguments, describing them as variously “unhelpful”, “of…

28th November 2017 By Bilaal Shabbir

The Home Office is entitled to ignore a judge’s decision to grant bail

The Court of Appeal has reluctantly agreed that the Home Office has the power to ignore a First-tier Tribunal’s decision to grant bail to an immigration detainee. However, on the particular facts of the case, the decision to refuse consent to bail was deemed unlawful. Despite the impropriety of a departmental civil servant being able to overrule an independent and impartial judge, the Court of Appeal was duty bound to give effect to the clear intention of Parliament. This decision could lead to more regular use of the power to refuse consent by the Home Office, which is deeply concerning. Civil servants overruling judges Lukasz Roszkowski v Secretary of State…

24th November 2017 By Iain Halliday

FTT slapped down for ignoring Immigration Rules in deportation case

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 1782 the Court of Appeal found that a First-tier Tribunal decision to allow a Jamaican man’s deportation appeal under Article 8 contained a material error of law and set it aside. In criminal deportation appeals, the court found, the FTT must do more than “simply” engage in a Razgar assessment under Article 8. A finding that deportation would be disproportionate, without considering the substance of paragraphs 398 and 399 of the Immigration Rules, is a material error of law. No room for “unstructured Article 8 analysis” AM is a Jamaican man who was convicted of a number of…

23rd November 2017 By John Vassiliou

Worker Registration Scheme extension unlawful, Court of Appeal confirms

In a decision of 7 November 2017, the Court of Appeal unanimously found, yet again, that the extension of the Worker Registration Scheme from 1 May 2009 to 30 April 2011 was unlawful and incompatible with EU law. The case is Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze [2017] EWCA Civ 1751. The facts of the case are not necessary to understand the outcome, so I will not dwell on them. What was the Worker Registration Scheme? On 1 May 2004, ten new states joined the European Union. Of those, eight are large countries in eastern Europe and are collectively referred to as the “A8 states”. Annex VIII…

9th November 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

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

Prosecutions for telling the truth: part deux, with added Hardial Singh

Last year the High Court in JM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1773 (Admin) made a declaration that “the Defendant may not lawfully require the Claimant, under section 35 of the [Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004], to tell Zimbabwean officials that he agrees to return voluntarily”, and held that JM had been unlawfully detained. The Secretary of State’s appeal on both issues has now been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Construction of section 35 The court dealt first with a preliminary issue: whether Jay J had erred in constructing a “criminal statute” without informing himself of the position of the Crown…

7th November 2017 By James Packer

Court of Appeal: private religious belief does not risk persecution

The difficulty of presenting asylum claims based on religion is well known. Such claims raise difficult evidential problems, which are addressed in this detailed post by Colin Yeo. But AS (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1539 seems to pose a novel difficulty: should a claim by a person who would exercise their religion in utter privacy be accepted? Factual background and First-tier Tribunal decision The appellant is an Iranian national. She had made a previous asylum claim in the UK on the basis of her political activities, but was refused and removed to Iran in 2009. In 2012, she returned and shortly afterwards made a…

23rd October 2017 By Thomas Beamont

Hospital orders and deportation

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v KE (Nigeria) [2017] EWCA Civ 382, the Court of Appeal tackled the narrow, but important, issue as to whether a non-British citizen who is convicted and sentenced to a hospital order with restrictions under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is “a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years” for the purposes of section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so that the public interest requires his deportation unless there are very compelling circumstances that mean that it would be a disproportionate interference with his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on…

4th October 2017 By Nath Gbikpi

Human rights, long residence and the integration test in the Court of Appeal

AS v SSHD [2017] EWCA 1284 Practitioners commonly rely on the “integration test” in the Immigration Rules to resist an individual’s removal on human rights grounds. The current rules can in some circumstances require a consideration of whether there would be “very significant obstacles” to an individual’s re-integration in that country if they were to be removed or deported. But what characteristics or circumstances can be considered when assessing these obstacles? The Court of Appeal in AS has provided some useful guidance. For a full exploration of the long residence rules and the 10 and 20 year rules in particular see our earlier post: The case of Stoly Jankovic: what are…

14th September 2017 By Thomas Beamont

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court of Appeal decides Supreme Court ruling in Hesham Ali is already redundant

Well, that did not take long. The Court of Appeal has in the case of NE-A (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 239 decided that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Hesham Ali [2016] UKSC 60 is confined to cases in which the Immigration Rules are applied and does not apply to cases decided under the statutory human rights considerations introduced by the Immigration Act 2014. As background, in 2012 the Government introduced new Immigration Rules which in effect set a series of strict quasi-statutory tests to be applied in immigration cases in which human rights were pleaded. The intended effect was to reduce the…

18th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal gives guidance on meaning of ‘unlawful residence’

The case of Akinyemi v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 236 concerns the deportation of a man born and raised in the United Kingdom, a country he has never left. It provides valuable guidance on the meaning of the word ‘unlawful’ within the context of deportation provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 and shows just how far the law has moved in this area. Facts Remi Akinyemi is a man for whom one struggles to feel any great sympathy. Over the course of a prolific criminal career he accumulated 20 convictions and was found guilty of, amongst other offences, causing death by dangerous driving, possession of heroin with intent to supply, and…

11th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Court of Appeal reaffirms position on adult dependent relatives

In Butt v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 184 the Court of Appeal considers the weight to be given to the relationship between parents and their adult dependent children in the Article 8 balancing exercise. It is notable – and this was the principle reason it managed to reach the Court of Appeal – because of the original decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) to make separate findings in relation to parents and those adult dependent children: allowing the appeals of the latter, while rejecting the former. The facts The Butt family arrived in the UK on 7 July 2004. They had been granted visit visas for a 6 month stay but did…

30th March 2017 By Nick Nason

Upper Tribunal wrong all along on Kareem and proxy marriages of EU citizens

The Court of Appeal has held that the Upper Tribunal has been wrong all along about proxy marriages and EU law. The case is Awuku v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 178 and it overrules the earlier tribunal cases of Kareem (Proxy Marriages – EU Law) Nigeria [2014] UKUT 24 and TA and Others (Kareem explained) Ghana [2014] UKUT 316. It is always a bad sign when a judgment subsequently has to be “explained”. And so it was here. The Home Office had already conceded that the approach of the Upper Tribunal was wrong and the Court of Appeal had to resort to appointing an Advocate…

23rd March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Scarring evidence in asylum cases

“The Tribunal’s conclusion was… that [in order to fabricate an asylum claim] the appellant had allowed himself to be anaesthetised and then branded with a hot metal rod”  – Elias LJ, KV (Sri Lanka) In this area of law, it is sometimes hard to live with the reality of what human beings can do to one another. It is trite to say that the white heat of a traumatic experience can be lost in the cold sterility of judicial evaluation. But it bears repeating that judges who specialise in immigration and asylum law are human beings, too. They have the capacity to become inured to the sea of trauma and…

15th March 2017 By Nick Nason

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

Court of Appeal testing new shorts

The Court of Appeal is testing out a new style of “short form” judgment. Given the backlogs at the Court of Appeal at the moment, this seems eminently sensible. Although the particular judgment — yet another appeal by the Secretary of State against a deportation appealbeing allowed — does beg the question of whether permission is granted rather too readily to the Secretary of State despite the supposed strictures of the second appeals test: This is a short form judgment which, with the encouragement of Sir Terence Etherton MR, judges of the Court of Appeal may in future use for appellate decisions in appropriate cases. This appeal raises no issue…

22nd February 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal endorses Home Office practice of issuing supplementary decision letters

The Court of Appeal has in effect endorsed the Home Office practice of issuing “supplementary” decision letters during judicial review litigation to try and make good defects in the original refusal. The case is Caroopen & Myrie v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1307. Underhill LJ concludes as follows: In summary, I would reject the submission that there is anything inherently wrong in the deployment by the Secretary of State in judicial review proceedings of supplementary letters post-dating the challenge. They may be effective in any one of three ways identified above. Ms Anderson sensibly acknowledged in her oral submissions that their use was…

18th January 2017 By Colin Yeo

Court of Appeal gives go-ahead for Dublin returns to Italy

If the case of Tarakhel was considered another body blow to the Dublin system, the recent Court of Appeal case of NA (Sudan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1060 has picked up the Dublin system up off the ropes for another round. The Court decided that Tarakhel did not extend to other vulnerable persons and was only ever intended to apply to families with children. And the two appellants in NA (Sudan) were extremely vulnerable, suffering a range of health problems including severe depressive disorder, and the risk of suicide, with one appellant suffering a history of rape and sexual abuse in Italy….

3rd January 2017 By Chris Desira

Upper Tribunal approach to proxy marriages conceded to be wrong by Home Office

In an interesting development on the validity of proxy marriages, the Home Office has taken the view in a Court of Appeal case that the Upper Tribunal’s approach in Kareem [2014] UKUT 24 is wrong in law. The Court of Appeal has declined to simply overrule Kareem on this basis, though, and is asking the Attorney General to appoint an advocate to the court. Those following this blog for some time will be aware that I have previously expressed some scepticism about the correctness of Kareem and the cases which follow it. The general rule of private international law is that a marriage which was lawful in the country in which it occurred…

21st December 2016 By Colin Yeo