News
A study by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has concluded that higher immigration to an area is not to blame for driving the voters into the arms of the BNP. The report found that nine out of the top 10 areas where the BNP were most active actually had a lower than average proportion of recent migrants. Read more...
Last week, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg signed up to Liberty's and the Refugee Council's asylum election pledge. Read more...
As a result of last week's disruption to air travel, the following visa offices are experiencing significant delays in processing applications:
- Warsaw - which also processes applications from Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia.
- Stockholm - this affects visa applications from Finland and Norway.
- UK - this is affecting visa applications from Algeria, and Pakistani settlement applications.
- Istanbul - this is affecting visa applications from Tel Aviv.
Cases
R (on the application of Kiana) v SSHD (2010) QBD (Admin)
Michael Supperstone QC, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, found that s.4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 required the Secretary of State to consider whether to provide welfare support to a failed asylum seeker by reference to the provision of accommodation. It was a more limited power than that conferred on the Secretary of State by s.95, which distinguished between the provision of accommodation and welfare support, but that limitation was part of the United Kingdom's legitimate immigration control policies.
QB v SSHD [2010] EWHC 483 (Admin)
It was held that it was at least arguable that the Government's present policy on waiver of fees amounted to an insurmountable barrier to an applicant who wanted to make an application under Art.8 ECHR for entry clearance, and therefore amounted to a disproportionate interference with those rights.
WJ (China), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 776 (Admin)
Beatson J. found that a decision to refuse to treat new submissions as a fresh asylum claim was not an immigration decision within the meaning of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.82 and so there was no right to an in-country appeal under s.92 of the same act. Read more...
