Issue 21 - 10th July 2006

Monday 10 July 2006

Share This Page

Email This Page


MEPs have adopted two non-binding reports on asylum and immigration. The first report is on mutual information procedure in the areas of asylum and immigration and the second report is on strategies and means for the integration of immigrants in the European Union. Click Here for more info

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) is calling on European policy-makers to take a new approach to refugees and asylum. The Agenda for Change calls on European countries to put human rights and respect at the core of their policies and start sharing responsibility for refugees. Click Here for more info

Asylum seekers and their supporters protested outside the Immigration Reporting Centre on Bedford Street in North Shields against the 'criminalisation' of foreigners seeking refuge in Britain. Demonstrators joined a national call for an end of the detention of children, forced deportation, tagging, as well as the indefinite detention of people without bail. Click Here for more info

A Migrationwatch poll has "shown" that more than seven out of 10 Britons disagree with offering an amnesty to illegal immigrants. Click Here for more info

The number of refugees repatriated to southern Sudan under United Nations auspices passed 10,000 this week, a modest landmark in the efforts to bring home some 350,000 people who fled two decades of civil war that formally ended in early 2005 with a peace agreement between the Government and southern rebels. Click Here for more info

Home Office

The Asylum Policy Instruction on family reunion is currently being revised. Click Here for more info


In AS and AA (Effect of previous linked determination) Somalia [2006] UKAIT 00052, the AIT gives guidance on how to proceed when it is said that a previous determination of the claim or appeal of another claimant is of relevance in assessing a later claim by a different person. Click Here for more info

In MG and VC (EEA Regulations 2006; "conducive" deportation) Ireland [2006] UKAIT 00053 the Tribunal held: (1) The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 contain the law relating to all EEA appeals dealt with from the date of their commencement [i.e. 30 April 2006]: the old Regulations are not applicable to the old appeals (even though the consequence may be that a decision lawful when it was made, and a determination by the Tribunal containing no error of law when it was made, may now disclose an error of law because of the retrospective change of the decision and its authority); (2) Regulation 21 (and the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC) may make it more difficult for the Secretary of State to remove or deport an EEA national on the ground of criminal conduct than appeared to be the case previously. Read more

In SW and Others (Paragraph 60 (v): meaning of "including") Jamaica [2006] UKAIT 00054 the AIT held that in order to meet the requirements of immigration rule HC 395, para. 60(v), an applicant must have taken and passed any relevant examinations. Other evidence of satisfactory progress may add to but cannot substitute for success in examinations. Read more

In OE and NK (No hearing; compliance with Rules) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00055 the AIT held: (1) the power to determine an appeal without a hearing under r.15(2) of the 2005 Procedure Rules is discretionary - if the appeal cannot properly or justly be determined on the basis of the documents on file, no Immigration Judge should regard himself or herself as forced to proceed without a hearing; (2) the appellant's failure to enclose the notice of decision with the notice of appeal is a failure to comply with the Rules but it does not make the appeal invalid; (3) the respondent's failure to send the appeal bundle (with or without a direction to do so) is a failure to comply with the Rules or a direction but it does not amount to conceding the appeal or reversing the burden of proof; (4) it may be possible to deal with the fact that a document is missing by issuing a further direction to send it, stating precisely what the consequence will be if this direction is not complied with. Read more

In ES (Deportation pending on 2nd October 2000) Ukraine [2006] UKAIT 00056 the AIT held that the transitional provisions associated with the introduction of administrative removal of overstayers (i.e. s.10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) allow a deportation order to be made after commencement of the 1999 Act, on 2 October 2000, when the decision to make such an order was made before commencement. However, those provisions are intended to deal only with a process that was pending in that sense at commencement on 2 October 2000 - they should not be read as preventing s. 10 from ever applying to a person if a deportation decision has been made against him before that date. The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the SSHD's refusal to revoke the deportation order whilst making clear their view that it would be open to the SSHD to give directions for the appellant's removal as an overstayer under 1999 Act. s. 10. Read more

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

+ View more awards