The Upper Tribunal has rejected a challenge to the Article 8 compliance of the “deport first, appeal later” system despite previously having ordered the Home Office to bring the claimant back to the UK to ensure he had an effective appeal. The case is R (Watson) (s. 94B process; s....
Yilmaz & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 300 concerned two Turkish nationals, Mr Yilmaz and Mr Arman, who were deported in 2017 due to their criminal convictions. Both had made human rights claims to stay in the UK. Their claims were certified, meaning...
Last week I set out some observations on the taking of evidence by videoconference from abroad. I pointed to substantial authority that, in the case of the willing litigant or witness outside the UK dialling up on Zoom, where no judicial assistance (such as a witness order) is required in the...
Among the changes brought about by the pandemic has been greatly increased use of videoconferencing technology by immigration tribunals, including for the taking of evidence. This has made it much more viable for live evidence of appellants and other witnesses to be heard, including from outside the United Kingdom. It...
In the recent High Court case of R (Arman & Anor) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1217 (Admin), Mr Justice Mostyn made comments about remote hearings that may be a straw in the wind suggesting that it will be harder to argue the unfairness of out-of-country appeals in future. Background: arguments...
Juba (s. 94B: access to lawyers) [2021] UKUT 95 (IAC) is the latest judgment dealing with the “deport first appeal later” policy, following on from the famous Kiarie and Byndloss case. In Juba, the Upper Tribunal has found that it was acceptable for the First-Tier Tribunal to hear an appeal...
Shamima Begum is a citizen of Bangladesh and so would not be made stateless by being stripped of her British citizenship, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has held. The main SIAC judgment is Shamima Begum (Preliminary Issue : Substansive) [2020] UKSIAC SC_163_2019, while there is also a brief High Court...
The High Court’s recent decision in R (Shafikul Islam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2939 (Admin) is yet another case on the vexed issue of whether appeals against refusals of EEA residence cards are suspensive of removal (spoiler: no). I previously expressed grave reservations that...
The decision in Khan & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1684 brings to an end the long-running ETS saga, so called after the Educational Testing Service company that discovered large-scale cheating on its Home Office-approved English exams. In a previous case the Court...
The new case of R (QR (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413 is yet another example of fallout from last year’s Supreme Court judgment in Kiarie and Byndloss, relating to the infamous “deport first, appeal later” policy. The QR judgment itself doesn’t give much more guidance...
In the case of R (Wandzel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 1371 (Admin), Nigel Poole QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, had to deal with the effect of the famous case of Kiarie and Byndloss (discussed on Free Movement here) for deportation cases...
When the Supreme Court delivered judgment in R (Kiarie and Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42, immigration practitioners across the UK took an audible sigh of relief. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the “deport first, appeal later” regime which operated under section...
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...
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...
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...
The power under the Immigration Act 2016 to certify any human rights appeal, not just deportation appeals, for “remove first, appeal later” treatment came into force today, 1 December 2016. For background see this earlier blog post: New commencement order introduces out of country human rights appeals and more. Guidance...
At the beginning of this month the Home Office brought into force new guidance on the suspension of removal directions for pending judicial reviews. There are two crucial changes to the policy: (1) At present, when a judicial review is brought within 3 months of a previous judicial review or...
The end of immigration appeals from within the UK is nigh: section 63 of the Immigration Act 2016 is being brought into force from 1 December 2016 by the Immigration Act 2016 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1037SI 2016/1037). The change introduces a power for the Home...
This week, Lord Justices Elias, Richards and McCombe sat in the Court of Appeal and heard the first test cases against Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 94B, introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 and which came into force on 28th July 2014, provides the Home...
From today the Secretary of State has the power to certify deportation appeals so as to permit them only to be brought from abroad. The power is introduced by section 17 of the Immigration Act 2014, amending into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 a new section 94B. The...
