Ahmadi (s.47 decision: validity; Sapkota) Afghanistan  UKUT 147 (IAC) (14 May 2012)
The Upper Tribunal found that a removal decision under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 cannot be made in respect of a person until written notice of the decision to refuse to vary that person's leave to remain has been given to that person. The current practice of the Secretary of State to incorporate both decisions in a single notice is accordingly incompatible with the relevant legislation. As a result, the present usefulness of s. 47 is highly questionable. Click here for the full judgement.
Barnett and others (EEA Regulations: rights and documentation) Jamaica  UKUT 142 (IAC) (14 May 2012)
The Upper Tribunal found that the requirement in regulation 17(1)(a) and (2)(a) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 for the production of a valid passport relates to the passport of the applicant, not the EEA national; the "proof" that the Secretary of State can lawfully require in applications under regulations 17 and 18 in order to entitle a non EEA national to a residence card (regulation 17) or a permanent residence card (regulation 18) may, nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, entail the production of the passport or other identity document of an EEA national; but it is unlawful to refuse applications merely because such documentation is not forthcoming. The Secretary of State needs to show a valid reason why it is required. This is particularly so in the case of regulation 18, given that there is likely to be relevant material relating to such documentation on file from a previous, successful application. Click here for the full judgement.
Buama (inter-country adoption - competent court) Ghana  UKUT 146 (IAC) (14 May 2012)
The Upper Tribunal noted that the immigration rules regarding adoptions do not appear to contemplate a refusal to accept the validity of the order of a competent court. Any challenge to the validity of such orders order by the Secretary of State would have to be by expert evidence: simply setting out the provisions of a statute is not sufficient. Click here for the full judgement,
Mumu (paragraph 320; Article 8; scope) Bangladesh  UKUT 143 (IAC) (14 May 2012)
The Upper Tribunal found that although paragraph 320(7A) applies only where someone has been dishonest, the dishonesty does not need to be that of the applicant for entry clearance or leave to enter. For paragraph 320(11) to apply, however, it needs to be shown that the applicant (as opposed to someone acting without his or her knowledge) has contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the immigration rules. There are clear, cogent policy reasons why an application tainted by dishonest representation should be refused. The same is true of paragraph 320(7B), which deals, in a graduated way, with the effect of such dishonesty on future applications for entry clearance. The fact that paragraph 320(7B) is subject to the exceptions set out in paragraph 320(7C) cannot rationally be used, in conjunction with Chikwamba, in order to destroy the efficacy of paragraph 320(7A). The fact that someone cannot have past dishonesty held against them in their next application for entry clearance does not mean that it must necessarily be regarded as disproportionate in Article 8 terms to refuse their present application, on the basis of that dishonesty. Click here for the full judgement.
R (on the application of SS) v London Borough of Croydon (AAJR)  UKUT 139 (IAC) (16 May 2012)
The Upper Tribunal determining an application for judicial review found that Ian Shearer was a reliable expert witness when it came to assessing the genuineness of an Afghan Tazkira.
SF and Others v Sweden 52077/10  ECHR 830 (15 May 2012)
The Strasbourg Court found that the relevant country information on Iran confirms that the authorities effectively monitor internet communications and regime critics both within and outside of Iran. A specific intelligence "Cyber Unit" targets regime critics on the internet. Iranians returning to Iran are screened on arrival. There are a number of factors which indicate that the resources available could be used to identify an applicant of a particular profile.
MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012)
The Court of Appeal found that there was no duty to hold an independent investigation, whether it takes the form of a public inquiry or some other form, routinely arising upon the occurrence of events such as those at Yarl's Wood on 17 June 2009, even if children are involved.
Immigration Law Training
British nationality law: refresher and update
ILPA seminar, 23 May 2012, London
Nationality law expert and Garden Court barrister Laurie Fransman QC will be training on behalf of ILPA on British nationality law. For full details, click here.
European Law Update
HJT Training, Mondat 28 May 2012, London
Sandra Akinbolu deals with the latest developments on extended family members, the rights of parents of children in education, obtaining and exercising the right of appeal, and maximising the benefit to be derived from the Citizens Directive. Click here for more details.
Mental Health, Article 3 and Detention
AVID AGM, 30 May 2012, London
Topical and vital discussion concerning HA (Nigeria) and other issues relating to the detention of vulnerable persons. Stephanie Harrison of Garden Court Chambers will be speaking alongside Hamish Arnott of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, Ali McGinley of AVID and Adeline Trude of Bail for Immigration Detainees. Click here for full details.
Immigration Law Books
Garden Court Chambers immigration team members are authors of numerous books which we mention from time to time.
Fransman's British Nationality Law (3rd edition)
The third edition of Fransman's British Nationality Law, written by Laurie Fransman QC and with contributions from Adrian Berry and Alison Harvey, was published in spring 2011. Price: £295.00. For full details, click here.
Macdonald's Immigration Law & Practice (8th edition)
The eighth edition of Macdonald's Immigration Law & Practice was written by Ian Macdonald QC with contributions from many members of the Garden Court Immigration Team. Price: £230.00. For full details, click here.
If you enjoy reading our bulletins please consider sponsoring us for the London Legal Walk by clicking here to donate.