The EU Commissioner for human rights stressed that family unity is a human right for refugees. As restrictive refugee measures are put in place in a number of European countries, the Commissioner encouraged positive and humane policies which encourage family reunification, in line with agreed international norms. More info
The Immigration (Supply of Information to the Secretary of State for Immigration Purposes) Order 2008 No. 2077 provides that information held by certain persons may be supplied to the Secretary of State for use for "immigration purposes". These persons are the Secretary of State for Transport; the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for the purposes of functions relating to social security; and the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences and safeguarding national security. More info
In Chen (R on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 437 (Admin) (6 March 2008) Silber J in the Administrative Court found that the allocation of responsibility between member states under the Dublin regulations cannot be challenged by an individual save on human rights grounds and perhaps on the basis of irrationality. An asylum seeker does not have the right to be informed that the Dublin Regulations II are to be invoked against them and given the policy of Dublin II which stressed the need for speedy identification of forum for the claim, factors such as a return to the country of origin were a matter for the State with responsibility for the claim generally.
In LS (Uzbekistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 909 (30 July 2008) the Court of Appeal noted that there are many good reasons why findings of fact made on the hearing of the original appeal should not be re-opened on a reconsideration unless they are undermined by an error of law.
In Omoregie and Others v Norway (Application no. 265/07; 31 July 2008) the European Court of Human Rights considered the case of an individual facing expulsion whose links to Nigeria were particularly strong, and his links to Norway comparatively weak, apart from the family bonds he had formed there with the other applicants pending the proceedings. The Court found that a decision prohibiting the first applicant re-entry for five years did not render removal disproportionate as it was imposed as an administrative sanction, the purpose of which was to ensure that resilient immigrants do not undermine the effective implementation of rules on immigration control. Moreover, it was open to the first applicant to apply for re-entry already after two years abroad.
In Ngirincuti (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1952 (Admin) (15 July 2008), Blake J in the Administrative Court pointed out that medical evidence regarding asylum claims of sexual violence may frequently play a critical role as women may well be disadvantaged in the societies they are coming come and have little other documentary or other evidence to establish the veracity of their claims: an expert assessor trained by the Medical Foundation would undoubtedly be aware of his need to comply with his duty of candour to the court and not to overstate conclusions and to justify any conclusions that he does reach, if they are challenged, by reasoning and explanation.
There is a course on Challenging immigration decisions, appeal rights and other remedies given by Steve Symonds of ILPA on Monday 8 September 2008, Leeds, 2.30-.415pm.