Source: https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/immigration-law-bulletin-issue-311-11-february-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:22:25+00:00

Document:
For the highly critical report of the cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people and the Children's Society's comments on the same, click here.
New changes to the Immigration Rules by way of HC943 came into effect on 31 January 2013 making changes to the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route. For the UKBA summary and to see the new rules, click here.
The Grand Chamber of the CJEU held that on its proper interpretation, Art 12(1)(a) of the Qualification Directive (and see Art 1D of the Refugee Convention), the cessation of protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the UN other than the UNHCR, "for any reason" included the situation in which a person who, after actually availing himself of such protection or assistance, had ceased to receive it for a reason beyond his control and independent of his volition. Accordingly three Palestinian asylum claimants in Hungary, who had been registered with the UNRWA and had resided in camps in Lebanon and who had been forced (on their credible claims) to flee those camps for reasons of threats and or violence were entitled to refugee status - as would any such previously UNRWA 'protected' Palestinian who can credibly claim to have been forced out against his or her will from a UNRWA camp in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) or the Gaza Strip, subject of course to not being excluded under QD Art 12(1)(b), (2) or (3) (cf. Refugee Convention, Arts 1e & 1F).
Sir Stanley Burnton reiterated his judgment in MA (Ethiopia) to the effect that in contrast to the question of risk of persecution on return, inability to return is to be proved on the balance of probabilities, and held that as the UT Judge had merely found that there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that the appellant was a Palestinian and thus may not be able to be returned to Saudi Arabia but that the SSHD may need to undertake further enquiries, the UT Judge had not erred in rejecting the appellant's submission that he should be granted leave on Art 8 grounds while any such enquiries are made and in holding that Art 8 was not engaged. Beatson LJ added that as regards "limbo" type claims for leave on Art 8 grounds, the time after which the "limbo" argument can come into play may depend on the attitude of the individual concerned to efforts to establish his or her nationality or to obtain documentation.
Mostyn J rejected the would-be Tier 2 (General) Migrant claimant's submission that Immigration Rules, paras 320(7A) & (7B) are unlawful as being excessively mandatory such as to emasculate any residual discretion. Mostyn J agreed with the SSHD that the effect of Alvi was not to abrogate entirely the residual discretion of the SSHD to make decisions in favour of migrants which are more favourable than a literal reading of the Rules allows and held that in any event rules 320(7A) & (7B) fall outwith the no-fettering of discretion principle and lay down a rational 'bright-line' in controlling immigration. The judge also found the claimant to have acted dishonestly in her application for entry clearance by a "combination of deliberately false representations and extensive dishonest nondisclosure" as regards her past immigration history. Per Mostyn J at : "In my opinion there is a duty of candour imposed on an applicant completing this [entry clearance application] form. What is not acceptable is to answer the questions au pied de la lettre. It is unacceptable to give literal answers which may be the truth but which on any view do not comprise the whole truth."
An interesting decision from the UTIAC chaired by McCloskey J allowing the Tier 4 applicant's appeal on 'not in accordance with the law' grounds for the failure of the UKBA to apply or consider their 'flexibility policy' when refusing her PBS application for want of adequate bank statements as sent with the initial application. Whether the benefit to PBS applicants of this determination - relating to an application made under the PBS in January 2012 - can survive Immigration Rules para 245AA as introduced in September 2012 (and see para  of the determination) remains to be seen.
Tutors: Adrian Berry, Garden Court Chambers along with John Walsh, Doughty Street Chambers and Adam Weiss of the Aire Centre. Is NHS cover sufficient to meet the requirement that self-sufficient EEA nationals and EEA national students have comprehensive sickness insurance cover? What about other cases?
HJT Training presents a course "Appeals for Points Based System Specialists" dealing with all aspects of the PBS including all aspects of the lodging and preparation of appeals.

References: CJEU 
 Art 12
 Art 1
 Art 12
 Art 8
 Art 8
 Art 8