Immigration Law Cases
CW (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 915 23 July 2013
CW challenged the UTIAC's dismissal of his appeal against 'automatic deportation' on two grounds: (1) inadequate enquiry by the UT into the consequences for his children of his deportation; (2) SSHD's (and UT's) inadequate regard to former DP5/96 policy relating to deportation where children were involved (withdrawn in December 2008 after CW had been notified of his liability for deportation). In dismissing the appeal the CA held (1) the UTIAC did treat the interests of CW's children as a primary consideration when conducting the proportionality balancing exercise and did not err by not initiating itself further enquiries beyond the scope of the evidence; (2) the relevant date for determining the application of the policy was the date when the deportation order came to be made in November 2009 and by then the policy was long revoked. McCombe LJ emphasised the need for a "very strong" Art 8 claim to outweigh the statutorily declared public interest in the deportation of a 'foreign criminal'.
To read the full judgment, click here.
Prenga, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1981 (Admin) 12 July 2013
HHJ Thornton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court judge granted permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review to the claimant who argued that he would have succeeded under the 'legacy', owing to his having claimed asylum in the UK in 1999, had his claim been considered before 20 July 2011 when the rules changed and that he had a legitimate expectation that his claim should have been considered by that date.
To read the full judgment, click here.
Y, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2127 (Admin) 18 July 2013
HHJ Thornton QC (sitting as a DHCJ) held that the SSHD's refusal to grant the claimant ILR on discretionary grounds owing to his very serious mental ill-health - which medical specialists considered would be stabilised, to a degree, if he were granted settled immigration status - infringed his rights under both Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
To read the full judgment, click here.
Shinwari, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 2148 (Admin) 19 July 2013
The Deputy High Court judge, on consideration of KA (Afghanistan) and EU v SSHD (both re Afghan minors), rejected the claimant's contention that there was a causative link between the SSHD's admitted breach of her tracing duty in his case and any material disadvantage to him in failing in his asylum claim and appeal and so rejected his claim for 'corrective relief'.
To read the full judgment, click here.
Anoliefo (permission to appeal) [2013] UKUT 345 (IAC) 18 July 2013
The President, sitting in the UTIAC in Scotland on a criminal deportation case stated that where there is no reasonable prospect that any error of law alleged in the grounds of appeal could have made a difference to the outcome, permission to appeal should not normally be granted in the absence of some point of public importance that it is otherwise in the public interest to determine.
To read the full determination, click here.
Kaur (Patel fairness: respondent's policy) [2013] UKUT 344 (IAC) 18 July 2013
The UTIAC noted that the SSHD has produced a policy intended to give effect to the principles of common law fairness identified in Patel (relocation of sponsor licence - fairness) [2011] UKUT 211 (IAC). In essence, the policy provides that, in cases of potential discretionary refusal under para 322 of the immigration rules, caseworkers should follow the 'Patel' process; and where this is not done, the resulting decision will not be in accordance with the law.
To read the full determination, click here.
Wang and Chin (extension of time for appealing) [2013] UKUT 343 (IAC) 18 July 2013
The UTIAC gave guidance to judges when considering an application for permission to appeal to the UT that is made out of time: a judge must (i) consider all available material including the material on file and bear in mind the need for evidence to rebut the presumption of service, (ii) consider the extent of the delay and whether any explanation covers the whole of that period; (iii) give brief reasons for the discretionary decision to extend time or refuse to do so. The same principles apply whichever side is the applicant.
To read the full determination, click here.
NM (documented/undocumented Bidoon: risk) Kuwait CG [2013] UKUT 356 (IAC) 24 July 2013
The UTIAC considered previous country guidance in respect of Kuwaiti Bidoon, and maintained the distinction between those who are documented and not at real risk of persecution / serious harm and those who are undocumented and are at real risk of persecution / serious harm. However the relevant crucial document, from possession of which a range of benefits depends, is the security card, rather than the "civil identification documents" referred to in the previous country guidance in HE [2006] UKAIT 00051. It must be assumed that Bidoon who did not register between 1996 and 2000, and hence did not obtain security cards, are as a consequence undocumented Bidoon, though this must be seen in the context of the evidence that most Bidoon carry security cards.
To read the full determination, click here.
Immigration Law Training
Introduction to Tier 2 - Everything you need to know
ILPA, Wednesday 31 July 2013, 4pm in London
Practitioners, HR specialists and paralegals will receive an in-depth look at Tier 2 of the Points Based System. This will include training upon the new changes, ensuring companies are compliance ready from an immigration standpoint as well as providing practical and strategic advice on submitting Tier 2 applications.
For more information, click here,
