Source: https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/immigration-law-bulletin-issue-258-16-january-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:10:12+00:00

Document:
HC 1719 - providing for South Sudan to be added to Appendix 1 such that its (new) nationals need a visa even to visit the UK (whilst Turkish nationals who hold diplomatic passports will no longer need visit visas) - came into effect on 9 January 2012.
HC 1693 came into effect on 1 January 2012 with changes to the Tier 5 Youth Mobility Scheme and providing for countries listed in a revised Appendix G to have 'Deemed Sponsorship Status' each with a fixed number of places for the scheme.
To read further for both sets of changes click here.
The Strasbourg Court held that the conditions of the applicants' detention in Russian prisons between 2005 and 2008 violated their rights under Art 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of their being held in overcrowded cells with inadequate personal space and only an hour's exercise a day. Noting that inadequate conditions of detention appear to constitute a recurrent problem in Russia which has led it to find violations of Arts 3 and 13 of the Convention in more than eighty judgments since the first such finding in the Kalashnikov case in 2002, the Court held - under Art 46 (enforcement of the Court's judgments) - that Russia has to take specified actions to improve detention conditions. Annexed to the judgment is a list of 90 final judgments of the Court (given between 2002 and 2011) against Russia in which at least one violation of Art 3 of the Convention was found on account of inadequate conditions of the applicant's detention in a remand centre.
For the full judgment click here.
The Afghan applicant, who had been refused asylum, had applied for a residence permit for the purpose of residing with his wife and children who had been granted Dutch nationality. Relying on Art 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about the refusal to exempt him from the statutory administrative charge, €830, required to obtain a decision on his request for a residence permit and which he could not afford to pay. The Court instead held that his rights to an effective remedy under Art 13 had been violated.
Lindblom J rejected the Afghan claimant's claim that he had been denied an effective remedy in accordance with the Procedures Directive (2005/85) art. 39 because he had no right of appeal against the refusal of his asylum claim in circumstances where he had been granted less than a year's discretionary leave until he reached the age of 17½. The fact that a refused asylum claimant did not have access to the Tribunal straight away, or that the merits of his asylum claim might have changed by the time his appeal came to be heard (he would be over 18 by then), did not mean that he had no effective remedy given, inter alia, his access to judicial review. Judgment not yet available on BAILII.
Fairness requires the SSHD to give an applicant an opportunity to address grounds for refusal, of which he did not know and could not have known, failing which the resulting decision may be set aside on appeal as contrary to law (without contravening the provisions of s. 85A of the 2002 Act). So held the UT allowing the appeal of a Tier 4 (general) student migrant who had not furnished available evidence of having completed an earlier course - to thereby demonstrate his 'established presence' for lower maintenance requirements - with his application to the UKBA because the form had not required him so to do. Although on a strict reading of s. 85A, the appellant was not entitled to rely on the evidence which would have established his case on a point of which he was neither warned nor informed, until he received the decision deciding it against him, because he had not submitted it with his own application, his treatment had been conspicuously unfair such that the decision was contrary to law.
For the full determination click here.
An ILPA seminar designed to examine the issues arising since the Zambrano judgment and the implications for practitioners. It will focus on the judgment itself, subsequent relevant judgments of the Court of Justice (CJEU) (McCarthy, Dereci, etc.) national jurisprudence and UKBA policy. It will cover the unlawfully present persons who benefit, how the EU right of residence arising differs from art 8 ECHR rights, residence documentation, and using Zambrano to challenging unlawful detention and resist deportation/removal.Thursday 2 February 2012 for more information, click here.

References: Art 3
 Art 46
 Art 3
 Art 8
 Art 13
 art. 39
 art 8