News
UKBA has responded to Refugee Action's postcard campaign on asylum seekers by asserting that the government is committed to providing a safe haven for genuine refugees and that "[w]e do not consider it acceptable to send people to their countries of origin where they would have to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution". It also stated that a review is currently under way with the aim of delivering on the commitment to end the detention of children.
Click here to read more
Business secretary Vince Cable has been busy criticising his own government's immigration cap policy.
Click here to read more
Cases
Four determinations of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber):
BK (Deportation - s.33 "exception" UKBA 2007 - public interest) Ghana [2010] UKUT 328 (IAC)
The UT (chaired by Sedley LJ) held that where automatic deportation, under UKBA 2007, s.32, does not apply to a decision to deport following a criminal conviction, because, here, the appellant was under 18 at date of conviction, relevant case law decided in respect of pre-UKBA 2007 deportations remains applicable. In such cases, in line with CA guidance in N (Kenya) [2004] EWCA Civ 104, the IJ must attach weight to the SSHD's view of the public interest.
Click here for the full judgment
OT (Ankara agreement: students, businessmen, workers) Turkey [2010] UKUT 330 (IAC)
The UT held that (1) HC 510 (the immigration rules in force in 1973 - applicable as per the 'standstill clause' in the Ankara Agreement) contains no provision entitling a person admitted as a student to remain (or seek leave to remain) as a businessman; (2) The ECJ's decision in Payir (C294/06) has no application to those who are, or claim to be, businessmen as distinct from "workers".
Click here for the full judgment
RB (Linguistic evidence - Sprakab) Somalia [2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)
The UT held that: (1) linguistic analysis reports from Sprakab are entitled to considerable weight because of the data available to Sprakab and the process it uses. They should not be treated as infallible but evidence opposing them will need to deal with the particular factors identified in the report; (2) recordings of all material derived from the appellant and used as material for linguistic analysis should be made available to all parties if the analysis is to be relied on in the Tribunal; (3) Sprakab linguists and analysts are not to be required to give their names (as distinct from their identifiers, experience and qualifications) unless there is a good reason particular to the individual case.
Click here for the full judgment
SK (Article 1F(a) - exclusion) Zimbabwe [2010] UKUT 327 (IAC)
The UT held that: (1) Art 7.1 of the Statute of the International Criminal Courts, the Rome Statute, is usually regarded as providing the best working definition of a crime against humanity for the purposes of Art 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention; (2) where the act or crime does not involve the specifically listed forms of acts or crimes, in order to consider that a crime against humanity had occurred, the Tribunal must consider if the acts participated in by the appellant were of a "similar character" to those specified in Art 7.1(a) to (j) of the Rome Statute. In so doing, the Tribunal must consider the specific purpose of the crime, its intent and effect, the participation of an appellant in the crime and if needs be whether the appellant made a substantial contribution to the crime.
Click here for the full judgment
Training
Refugee and International Protection Update
22 September 2010, Central London, 16.00-19.15
A regular ILPA update run by the authors of the newly published 2nd edition of Asylum Law and Practice, Peter Jorro and Mark Symes, both of Garden Court Chambers.
For full details, click here
Judicial Review Conference
14 October 2010, Birmingham
A leading team from Garden Court Chambers will give an up-to-date overview of all aspects of judicial review including how it can be used in immigration proceedings, together with practical advice on how to apply the law successfully.
For full details, click here
