1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tribunal criticises government lawyers for “trench warfare” mentality and “inappropriate” conduct

In one of his final judgments as outgoing President, Mr Justice McCloskey launched a bitter broadside at the conduct of government lawyers in long-running litigation over the entry of refugee children. While the criticism of the solicitors at the Government Legal Department and of previous barristers instructed for the Home Office is robust and unambiguous, the background is hard to discern from the judgment itself, which arises essentially as satellite litigation around the failure of the Home Office to comply with previous orders made by the tribunal. The case is R (on the application of AM and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (liberty to apply –…

9th October 2017 By Colin Yeo

Further guidance from Upper Tribunal on withdrawal of immigration appeals

Not much to say about this one, but clearly it is important in those cases where the Home Office does withdraw a decision once the appeal has been lodged. Official headnote: (i)            The public law character of appeals to the FtT is reflected in the regulatory requirement governing the withdrawal of appeals that any proposed withdrawal of an appeal must contain the reasons for the course mooted and must be judicially scrutinised, per rule 17 of the FtT Rules and rule 17 of the Upper Tribunal Rules. (ii)          Judicial evaluation of both the withdrawal of an appellant’s appeal and the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s case or…

22nd September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal can (but won’t) hold Home Office in contempt for ignoring consent orders

The facts of R (on the application of MMK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (consent orders – legal effect – enforcement) [2017] UKUT 198 (IAC) involved the not uncommon scenario of the Home Office withdrawing its decision in response to an application for judicial review, agreeing a consent order which included an agreement to pay the costs of the claimant and to make new decision be made within a certain time and then failing to comply with that consent order. As an aside, this is why the headline figures on success rates for applications for judicial review are so misleading: because a very significant number of claims are settled…

21st September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Deception, causation and deprivation of British citizenship

In Sleiman (deprivation of citizenship; conduct) [2017] UKUT 367 (IAC) the tribunal considered the question of how directly causative past deception must be of a subsequent grant of British citizenship in order for a person to be deprived of that citizenship on the basis of deception. The official headnote: In an appeal against a decision to deprive a person of a citizenship status, in assessing whether the appellant obtained registration or naturalisation “by means of” fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact, the impugned behaviour must be directly material to the decision to grant citizenship. The deception in this case was to mislead the authorities about age on…

19th September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 continue to apply for appeals says tribunal

Pretty obscure looking at first glance, this one: TM (EEA nationals – meaning; NI practitioners : Zimbabwe) [2017] UKUT 165 (IAC). So much so I confess I overlooked it. Firstly, some dual national British-EEA nationals were protected from the UK’s arguably over zealous implementation of McCarthy. I’ve had to advise on this before and it is a very limited group. Secondly, and much more importantly to day to day practice. the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 are apparently preserved for appeals (or rights of appeal) already commenced on 1 February 2017, which was not the case when the 2006 regulations replaced the predecessor 2000 regulations (see MG and VC (EEA Regulations 2006; “conducive”…

19th September 2017 By Colin Yeo

Upper Tribunal on readmission of EU nationals to attend deportation appeal hearings

The UK now removes EU citizens and family members before their deportation appeal takes place. Obviously, this interferes with the life that the person has established in the UK (job and home may be lost, for example), in effect prejudges the outcome of the appeal, has a drastic impact on family members and also interferes somewhat with preparing the appeal. However, it is possible for such an individual to re-enter the UK for the purpose of attending the appeal hearing, for example to give evidence. In R (on the application of Gabor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reg 29AA: interpretation) [2017] UKUT 00287 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal addresses…

24th August 2017 By Colin Yeo

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

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

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

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

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

Ankara Agreement standstill clause does not apply to settlement applications says tribunal

Official headnote: (I) The settlement of migrant Turkish nationals and their family members does not fall within the scope of the “stand-still clause” in Article 41(1) of the Ankara Agreement (ECAA) Additional Protocol as it is not necessary for the exercise of freedom of establishment under Article 13. Thus the status of settlement in the UK for such Turkish nationals and their family members cannot derive in any way from the ECAA or its Additional Protocol; (II) Where a Turkish national who exercised rights under the ECAA has been granted settlement in the UK the rights of such person and his family members are not derived from the ECAA or its Additional…

24th April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Home Office cannot unilaterally modify tribunal bail conditions (updated)

The as yet unreported case of R (on the application of Majera) v Secetary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 163 (IAC) is a thoughtful judgment from the Upper Tribunal gives helpful guidance on the legal status of a First Tier Tribunal bail decision which may have an error on its face. It may be helpful in cases where the Secretary of State appears to ignore the views of the FTT in granting bail and superimpose her own restrictions. The official headnote reads as follows: (1) A defect in framing the primary condition of bail granted by the First-tier Tribunal under paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971…

24th April 2017 By Amanda Weston

New case on children seeking entry under the Dublin Regulation

Official headnote: (I) The question of whether the Secretary of State has made a decision on the exercise of the discretionary power in Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation is one of fact which will be determined on the basis of evidence, direct or inferential. (II) Article 17 is an integral part of the Dublin regime. The suggestion that the Article 17 discretion falls to be exercised only where the family reunification criteria in Article 8 are not satisfied is misconceived. (III) Article 17 has a role in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures and systems…

21st April 2017 By Colin Yeo

Deport first, appeal later certificates, judicial reviews and fresh claims considered by Upper Tribunal

In the judicial review case of Ayache, R (on the application of) v SSHD (paragraph 353 and s94B relationship) [2017] UKUT 122 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers the lawfulness of a decision to certify a human rights claim under s.94B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. For those not already aware, s.94B gives effect to the government’s “Deport First, Appeal Later” policy, which was upheld as lawful by the Court of Appeal in Kiarie and Byndloss v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1020. The test case was, however, subject to an onward to appeal which was heard by the Supreme Court last month. Judgment is awaited. Brief Facts The Applicant in the…

4th April 2017 By Nick Nason

Upper Tribunal dismisses appeal against deprivation of citizenship of Rotherham sex gang

The facts behind the case are notorious; the law elucidated is notable. See the background legal discussion on the history of citizenship laws, the process behind deprivation, the relevance of the best interests of affected children and the relevance (or rather lack of it) of EU law at paragraphs 26 to and the official headnote: (i) While the two fold duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 are imposed on the Secretary of State, the onus of making representations and providing relevant evidence relating to a child’s best interests rests on the appropriate parental figure. (ii) A failure to discharge this onus may well…

3rd April 2017 By Colin Yeo

When is it reasonable to require British citizen children to leave Britain?

Two interesting and important legal points emerge from the Upper Tribunal’s determination in SF and others (Guidance, post-2014 Act) [2017] UKUT 120 (IAC). The first is on the issue of when, if at all, a British child might be required by immigration policy to leave the UK and the second is how far, if at all, the tribunal might take account of policies of the Secretary of State under the new appeals regime established by the Immigration Act 2014. Reasonableness of requiring a British child to leave UK It turns out that the Secretary of State’s policy is that it is never reasonable to require a British citizen child to…

29th March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Home Office messes up deportation of former Malaysian and British Overseas Citizen

Official (rather terse) headnote: The deportation of a former Malaysian national and former BOC is liable to be deemed unlawful where relevant Government Policies relating to inter-state arrangements with Malaysia have not been taken into account or given effect. I’ve got some sympathy for the Home Office on this one. The President asserts that it is “incoherent” to describe a British Overseas Citizen as “a British national albeit that he does not have a right of abode” (paragraph 27). That seems to me actually to be an accurate description: a British national but not a British citizen, the two being distinct for various slightly arcane reasons of colonial withdrawal. Other…

7th March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal on recorded video evidence and Article 8 considerations

Official headnote to Lama (video recorded evidence -weight – Art 8 ECHR : Nepal) [2017] UKUT 16 (IAC): (i) Video recorded evidence from witnesses is admissible in the Upper Tribunal. Its weight will vary according to the context. (ii) Alertness among practitioners and parties to the Upper Tribunal’s standard pre-hearing Directions and compliance therewith are crucial. (iii) There are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes family life within the compass of Article 8 ECHR. (iv) A person’s value to the community is a factor which may legitimately be considered in the Article 8 proportionality balancing exercise. Pre-recorded video would be particularly useful for an entry clearance appeal, it is worth pointing out….

2nd March 2017 By Colin Yeo

Upper Tribunal encourages parties to reach agreement on costs. Or else.

Potentially useful case when seeking to agree costs in good time. The official headnote: Where judicial review proceedings are resolved by settlement, the parties are responsible for doing all they can to agree costs, both as to liability and amount, rather than leaving this to the decision of the Tribunal, which is likely to carry its own penalty. And from the admirably succinct judgment: 5. I should like at this point to draw both parties’ attention to what Stanley Burnton LJ said at paragraphs 75 – 77 of the Croydon decision: there are too many cases in which courts, or now this Tribunal, are left to decide the question of costs, because the parties…

23rd February 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal case on lapsing, cancelling and revoking ILR

i) Article 13 of the Immigration (Leave to enter and Remain) Order 2000/1161 (the “2000 Order”) applies to holders of indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”) who travel to a country or territory outside the common travel area so that their ILR does not lapse but continues if Article 13(2)-(4) are satisfied. ii) If the leave of such an individual continues pursuant to Article 13(2)-(4) of the 2000 Order, an immigration officer has power to cancel their ILR upon their arrival in the United Kingdom. iii) The grounds upon which such leave may be cancelled are set out at para 321A of the Immigration Rules. iv) Section 76 of the Nationality,…

23rd February 2017 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal on meaning of absences from the UK for no more than 180 days

Official headnote: (i) On a proper construction of paragraph 245AAA(a)(i) of HC 395, an absence from the United Kingdom for a period of more than 180 days in one of the relevant 12 month periods will entail a failure to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 245CD. (ii) The term ‘residence’ in paragraph 245AAA(a) is to be equated to presence. Some very clever arguments put but sadly the case failed. Source: RN, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (paragraph 245AAA) [2017] UKUT 76 (IAC) (12 January 2017)

21st February 2017 By Colin Yeo

New country guidance case on returns to Iraq

BA (Returns to Baghdad) Iraq CG [2017] UKUT 00018 (IAC). Relatively concise and focussed at only 34 pages. There is no general risk of persecution but some will be at risk, particularly anyone perceived as a collaborator with foreign coalition forces, and if so there is unlikely to be sufficient protection. Those who do not succeed on refugee c=grounds could still succeed under Article 15(c). Official headnote: (i)      The level of general violence in Baghdad city remains significant, but the current evidence does not justify departing from the conclusion of the Tribunal in AA (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG [2015] UKUT 00544 (IAC). (ii)     The evidence shows that those who worked…

24th January 2017 By Colin Yeo

New case from President on children’s best interests and the public interest

Important new determination from President McCloskey on the best interests of children in human rights cases where the statutory considerations apply: Kaur (children’s best interests / public interest interface) [2017] UKUT 00014 (IAC). The official headnote: (1) The seventh of the principles in the Zoumbas code does not preclude an outcome whereby the best interests of a child must yield to the public interest. (2) This approach has not been altered by Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. (3) In the proportionality balancing exercise, the best interests of a child must be assessed in isolation from other factors, such as parental misconduct. (4) The best interests…

18th January 2017 By Colin Yeo

New case on two year reconsideration period for EU deportations

A new tribunal case on EU deportations. The headnote: Neither a decision to make a deportation order nor a notice of intention to make a deportation order triggers the two year period specified in regulation 24(5) of the EEA Regulations. The two year period begins upon the making of the deportation order itself. Regulation 24(5) provides for automatic reconsideration of deportation decisions if a person receives a deportation order but it is not actioned for a two year period. It reads: Where such a deportation order is made against a person but he is not removed under the order during the two year period beginning on the date on which…

23rd December 2016 By Colin Yeo

Albino child from Nigeria wins asylum claim

A child can be at risk of persecutory harm contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in circumstances where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk. Source: JA (child – risk of persecution : Nigeria) [2016] UKUT 560 (IAC) (24 November 2016)

22nd December 2016 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal makes order requiring dental age assessment of young asylum seeker

In a new case on dental age assessments, the tribunal has ordered that a young asylum seeker to undergo a dental x-ray and age assessment. If he refuses, his court case will be struck out. The case also gives general guidance on the correct approach to be followed in similar cases. The new case is ZM and SK, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Croydon (Dental age assessment) [2016] UKUT 559 (IAC). It follows on from the Court of Appeal judgment in London Borough of Croydon v Y [2016] EWCA Civ 398, covered earlier on Free Movement: Court of Appeal says children can be required to be x-rayed to challenge…

20th December 2016 By Colin Yeo

Nine convicted over student visa English test plot: BBC News

Nine people are convicted of an immigration fraud linked to English language tests used for student visas. Source: Nine convicted over student visa English test plot – BBC News Meanwhile, Nick Armstrong of Matrix Chambers has been involved in an interesting judicial review case also involving the ETS language testing palaver in which the President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber found that the Home Office had bullied a college into withdrawing a student from his course, which amounted to duress, manipulation of the system and an abuse of power. For more details see the Matrix website.

14th December 2016 By Colin Yeo

Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done

Astonishing conduct by a judge: In summary, the Judge (a) engaged in a private conversation with the Appellant’s representative (b) in the absence of the other party’s representative (c) in the precincts of the court room (d) partly out of sight and earshot of the Appellant and his spouse (e) in a setting other than that of bench/bar (f) before the Appellant’s hearing began (g) relating to the Appellant’s case and, finally, (h) the contents whereof, other than a question about the Appellant’s religious adherence, itself an improper enquiry made in this fashion, were not divulged to the Appellant. Appeal allowed, remitted to a differently constituted tribunal. The headnote reads…

23rd November 2016 By Colin Yeo

New tribunal case on burden and standard in refugee exclusion cases

New(ish) tribunal case on burden and standard in refugee exclusion cases. The official headnote: In every case involving exclusion of protection under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention, the onus of proof is on the Secretary of State, a detailed and individualised examination of the facts is required, there must be clear and credible evidence of the offending conduct, and the overall evaluative judgment involves the application of a standard higher than suspicion or belief. Source: Al – Sirri (Asylum – Exclusion – Article 1F(c)) Egypt [2016] UKUT 448 (IAC) (17 August 2016)

28th October 2016 By Colin Yeo

Nigerian country guidance case strengthens protection for trafficked women

In HD (Trafficked women) Nigeria CG [2016] UKUT 00454 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considered the position of victims of trafficking returning to Nigeria. Under the previous country guidance case, PO (trafficked women) Nigeria [2009] UKAIT 00046, in order to demonstrate a real risk of persecution on return to Nigeria, a victim of trafficking needed to demonstrate that they were trafficked by a criminal gang and that the gang had set ‘target earnings’ – that is, a certain amount of money that the individual was required to earn for the trafficker in their trafficking situation e.g. through prostitution – that had not yet been earned. For many extremely vulnerable claimants, it…

25th October 2016 By Bijan Hoshi

Upper Tribunal considers its powers to set aside its own decisions

The Upper Tribunal in this case considers its powers to set aside its own decisions. The official headnote: The decision of the Court of Appeal in Patel [2015] EWCA Civ 1175 entails the view that the Upper Tribunal’s powers to set aside its own decisions are limited to those in rules 43 and 45-6 of the Upper Tribunal Rules. This is actually a case from July which I seem to have somehow missed over the summer. The determination includes an interesting review of the jurisprudence and history of the tribunal’s powers of set aside, if you like that kind of thing. Which I do, tragically. The main practical import really seems to be that…

21st October 2016 By Colin Yeo

EU deportation appeals do not include consideration of prisoner transfer

The European Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA has replaced the framework previously set out in the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, itself supplemented by the Protocol of 18 December 1997, to provide the framework within which a request may be made to another Member State for the transfer of an EEA national sentenced in the United Kingdom to serve that sentence in his own country. In the United Kingdom context, it is a precondition for making a transfer request that there be in place a deportation order. A decision to make a deportation order is not a decision to transfer a serving prisoner to another Member State…

17th October 2016 By Colin Yeo

Appellants can be expected to prove negative nationality says Tribunal

Article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive does not impose a shared duty of cooperation on the Member State to substantiate an applicant’s nationality. Article 4(2) refers to documentation (including documentation regarding nationality(ies)) “at the applicant’s disposal” – which must include documentation which is not in the applicant’s present possession but is within his or her  power to obtain. The terms of Article 4(3) are consistent with the position that an applicant who denies he is a national of a country where he could obtain protection can be expected to take reasonable steps to establish that he is not such a national. The Appellant failed to prove that she was Eritrean…

17th October 2016 By Colin Yeo

Citizenship deprivation appeals must include consideration of likelihood of removal

(1) As held in Deliallisi (British citizen: deprivation appeal: scope) [2013] UKUT 439 (IAC), in an appeal under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 the Tribunal is required to determine the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation. (2) Whilst the Tribunal considering a section 40A appeal cannot pre-judge the outcome of any future legal challenge that the appellant might bring against a decision to remove, following deprivation, the Tribunal must nevertheless take a view as to whether, from its present vantage point, there is likely to be force in any future challenge: cf section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and paragraph 353 of the immigration rules. The…

14th October 2016 By Colin Yeo

Tribunal gives go ahead for Dublin returns to Malta. Again.

The Upper Tribunal again finds that Dublin returns to Malta can go ahead: (i) There have been significant developments in Malta during recent years. While there may be imperfections in the Maltese asylum decision making processes, these are not sufficient to preclude returns under the Dublin Regulation and, in particular, do not amount to a breach of Article 18 of the EU Charter. (ii) While Article 18 of the EU Charter confers rights of a procedural nature, the evidence does not establish that these will be infringed in the event of either of the Applicants pursuing a fresh asylum claim in Malta. (iii) The limitations of the mechanisms available under Maltese law for…

14th October 2016 By Colin Yeo
1 2 3 4 5 6 7