Immigration Law Bulletin - Issue 265 - 5 March 2012

Monday 5 March 2012

Share This Page

Email This Page


From 1 March 2012 the Border Force has been split from the UK Border Agency to become a separate operational command within the Home Office. To read further click here.

For the UK government's draft plan for reforming the European Court of Human Rights - inter alia so as to increase the 'margin of appreciation', and thereby reduce the possibilities of domestic judgments being effectively overturned in Strasbourg, and to reduce the current 6 month time limit in ECHR Art 35(1) to 2 - 4 months - click here

Meanwhile, following the judgment in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy (see last week's LB # 264), the Strasbourg Court has produced 'facts sheets' on "Collective expulsions", "Expulsions and extraditions" and on "Extra-territorial jurisdiction". To read further click here.

On 1 March the Legal Services Board launched a new discussion paper setting out its concerns about the regulation of immigration advice and services by regulators under the Legal Services Act 2007. The LSB is seeking responses by 24 May 2012. For the paper click here.

UKBA have amended their terms and conditions for 'customers' using Customer Accounts to make appointments, or applications using 'Apply Online'. To read further, click here.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has recommended the annual limit on skilled workers from outside of the EE Area should remain unchanged for the next financial year. To read further, click here.

Meanwhile the Home Secretary is proposing that only those 'economic migrants' (Tiers 1 and 2) who earn in excess of £35,000 pa should be eligible to remain in the UK for more than five years. To read further click here.

Statutory Instruments

The Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/594) came into force on 29 February 2012 with the effect of extending the categories of persons who are required to apply for a biometric immigration document. To read further click here.


MD (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 194 (28 February 2012)
Where the High Court refuses interim relief (eg for an injunction or stay prohibiting removal of the claimant whilst an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a refusal to accept a 'fresh claim' is pending before the High Court) the claimant should renew the application for such interim relief orally to a High Court judge (if appropriate to the out-of-hours duty HC judge) and only if the oral application is unsuccessful should s/he apply to a judge of the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the refusal and for interim relief pending the hearing of that appeal (or pending the determination of a renewed oral application to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review if such permission has also been refused on the papers by the High Court). To read the full judgment click here.

AJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] CSOH 36 (1 March 2012)
The Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session (equivalent to the English High Court) rejected the Syrian Kurd petitioner's judicial review challenge to the UT's refusal of permission to appeal to itself from the decision of the FTT. The challenge, based on FTT's alleged failure to deal adequately with relevant documents, failed to pass the 'second appeals' test threshold as per Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29 (the 'Scottish Cart'). Most interestingly reference is made to a pending challenge in the Inner House to the vires of para 41.59 of the Rules of the Court of Session (which reproduces TCEA 2007, s 13(6) - setting out the 'second appeals test'), the terms of which had been partly relied on by Lord Hope in Eba at para [47]. To read the full judgment click here.

Immigration Law Training

Refugee and international protection update
(Thursday 8 March 2012 at 4pm)

Peter Jorro and Mark Symes are presenting an ILPA course on Refugee and international protection update. For more information, click here.


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

+ View more awards