Immigration Bulletin - Issue 205 - 8 November 2010

Monday 8 November 2010

Share This Page

Email This Page

News

Interesting news emanating from Amnesty International. On 22 October the ECHR, 3rd section, informed the Dutch and Swedish governments that it considers it appropriate to apply Rule 39 (interim prohibition on removal) in respect of any Iraqi who challenges his or her return from the Netherlands or Sweden to Baghdad. On 3 November the court's section wrote again to the Dutch authorities confirming an exceptional indication given the day before (owing to a lawyer's complaint about non-access to clients who were due to be removed) that no expulsions to Baghdad should take place until 24 November 2010. Click here to read further.

The UK Border Agency has published refined criteria which will be applied to Tier 2 (General) sponsors' requests for additional certificates of sponsorship. Click here to read further.

The UK and French governments have announced new measures to build on their cooperation on immigration matters. Click here to read further.

More criticism of the Coalition government's economic immigration cap, this time from the Institute for Public Policy Research. Click here to read further.

Cases

R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2614 (Admin)
Wyn Williams J held, in the case of a 14 year old Afghani asylum seeker resisting removal to Belgium under the Dublin II Regulation, that when a decision-maker discharged an immigration and/or asylum function the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child should be treated as a primary consideration, in accordance with Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 s.55, unless there were cogent reasons justifying a different approach. The SSHD's failure to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the claimant's welfare meant that the removal decision was quashed with reconsideration ordered. Click here to read further.

R (Acheampong) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2751 (Admin)
Rafferty J refused to order the SSHD to make an appealable 'immigration decision' to remove a claimant whom she had refused leave to remain: "The SSHD has a power to make a removal decision simultaneously with a refusal of leave, but there is no duty upon her so to do." Click here to read further.

R (Omar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2792 (Admin)
Mr Ockelton (deputy HCJ) (a) rejected the claimant's submission that HC 395, para 353 only applies to a 'repeat claim' rather than to any 'fresh claim' (in the context of the same kind of 'immigration decision' of course) that is unmeritorious; (b) held that there was a sufficient prospect of success in the Iraqi Kurd claimant's fresh claim as based on Qualification Directive, Art 15(c) and Elgafaji to quash the SSHD's decision to refuse to treat it as a fresh claim; and (c) considered that in light of the changed approach to judicial consideration of fresh claims' challenges - such that the court must make up its own mind on the question whether there is a realistic prospect before the Tribunal (ZT (Kosovo) and R (YH)) - the effect of the court's decision should normally be that the SSHD now accepts that there is a fresh claim without need for a mandatory order. Click here to read further.

Training

Thursday 11th November from 4-7pm HJT Training offers a course covering the employment rights of immigrants, unlawful race discrimination and migrant workers, and the circumstances in which an employee's immigration status means that lose their statutory employment rights. To find out more, click here.

On 24th November from 4-7 pm HJT offers a course on the latest developments in the policy guidance, the cap on migrants and case law on PBS issues, concentrating on Tiers 1, 2 and 4. Essential for anyone acting in PBS cases. To find out more, click here.

Asylum & Immigration in the Court of Session: A St. Andrew's Day Review
Tuesday 30 November 2010, 2.00 - 5.15 pm
Speakers: Joe Bryce, Advocate and Jamie Kerr, Drummond Miller Solicitors
3 CPD hours
ILPA members £120, CR*£60, non-members £240
To find out more, click here.

Latest tweets from Garden Court Chambers

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by gardencourtlaw

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards