Source: https://asadakhan.wordpress.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 11:50:04
Document Index: 450186695

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC\t', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'UKSC\t']

United Kingdom Immigration Law Blog | Analysis, Commentary, News and Perspectives on Immigration Law | Page 2
Sahrawi Asylum Seeker’s Detention Upheld	Posted on September 22, 2016	by mkp R (ML (Morocco)) v SSHD [2016] EWHC 2177 (Admin) (31 August 2016)
ML’s detention for more than two years ended in November 2015. The issue was whether the home office acted reasonably by attempting to apply for an Emergency Travel Document from the Western Sahara Mission – which had already refused an ETD in March 2014 – given that the mission is not recognised by the British government. The court held that detention for 10 months during which efforts were made to obtain an ETD was not unlawful because the home office acted expeditiously and reasonably diligently in its continued efforts to obtain one. Born in Tindouf in a Polisario operated refugee camp in Western Sahara, ML claimed asylum in the UK in mid-2003 by contending that he was ill-treated in the camp but his claim remained undetermined as it was rejected for non-compliance. Irrespective of his claim to statelessness, no formal application had been made in that regard. Continue reading →
Share this:TweetShare on TumblrPocketPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Africa, Article 5, Asylum, Crime, Detention, Statelessness	|
‘Integration’ Calls for a Broad Evaluative Judgment	Posted on September 22, 2016	by mkp Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813 (11 August 2016)
His life fell into disarray when in October 2011 he was sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply. His offending made him a “foreign criminal” within the meaning of the UK Borders Act 2007 and section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Although he behaved in an exemplary way during his sentence, he was to be deported upon release from jail. His credibility as a witness impressed the Upper Tribunal and it found him to be a diligent student who expressed remorse for his offending. His initial appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was successful under the Immigration Rules but the decision was set aside by the Upper Tribunal – which then made a fresh decision after conducting a full hearing because of errors at the First-tier level. Applying the relevant law, it made the findings outlined at the outset, i.e. that Kamara was socially and culturally integrated in the UK. Continue reading →
Share this:TweetShare on TumblrPocketPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Appeals, Article 8, Court of Appeal, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Public Interest, Settlement, UKBA 2007	|
Children and the Seven Year Itch	Posted on September 22, 2016	by mkp R (MA (Pakistan) & Ors) v UTIAC & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 705 (07 July 2016)
The key issue in these proceedings was about the manner in which the court should approach the question of reasonableness. Since the critical question involves whether it would be unreasonable for the child to be expected to leave the UK, Elias LJ said at para 13 that the court should approach rule 276ADE(1)(iv) and section 117B(6) in the “same way” because they are “similarly framed”. Stripping things down to a manageable formula, the Court of Appeal was of the view that courts and tribunals only need to ask the following questions when applying section 117B(6). First, is the applicant liable to deportation? If so, section 117B is inapplicable and instead the relevant code will usually be found in section 117C. Second, does the applicant have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with the child? Third, is the child a qualifying child as defined Continue reading →
Share this:TweetShare on TumblrPocketPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Article 8, Children, Court of Appeal, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Proportionality, Public Interest, Removals	|
The first thing that Lady Hale said was that the parties needed to be aware that the same constitution of the court had heard the earlier appeals in MM (Lebanon) and related cases and the justices were “pretty familiar” with everything. Although the finality of the rules is creating new classes of victims, the court was slightly resistant to hearing points about the post-Immigration Act 2014 appellate regime where proceedings relying on Wednesbury grounds of challenge will inevitably mount because of the deletion of the “not in accordance with the law” ground of appeal. As argued by Mr Saini QC for the appellants, other pitfalls in the existing environment are that it has been authoritatively held – in cases such as Odelola [2009] UKHL 25 and Alvi [2012] UKSC for example – that the rules “create legal rights” but that is no longer true. Continue reading →
Share this:TweetShare on TumblrPocketPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Blogging, ECHR, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Proportionality, Spouses, UKSC	|
Extremely Deplorable CJEU Ruling on Domestic Violence	Posted on September 22, 2016	by mkp SSHD v NA (Pakistan) [2016] EUECJ C-115/15, EU:C:2016:487 (30 June 2016)
Professor Peers observed that it was the first occasion that the court “interpreted the specific rule on domestic violence cases” but he was repulsed by the CJEU’s decision because: “While the victim in NA was able to rely on other provisions of EU law, not all victims will be able to.” Everything seems to be wrong with this judgment because it gives EU citizens unilateral power to exploit their non-EU family members. The CJEU’s preference for a literal approach to retention of residence rights comes at the cost of misunderstanding the social context of the domestic violence rule and women’s hardship and subordination to men. KA purported to divorce NA by a talaq issued in Karachi in March 2007. In September 2008, NA instituted divorce proceedings in the UK; the decree absolute was issued in August 2009 and she was granted custody of the two German national children. Continue reading →
Share this:TweetShare on TumblrPocketPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Article 8, CFR, Citizens Directive, CJEU, Domestic Violence, Employment, Proportionality, Women	|
Onuekwere involved a Nigerian national who married an Irish national exercising her right of freedom of movement and residence in the UK. The couple had two children but his criminality was problematic. He was convicted of a sexual offence, for facilitating another person’s illegal entry into the UK and for unlawful possession of false documents. In Onuekwere the CJEU confirmed that a period of imprisonment does not count towards calculating the five years of continuous residence necessary for a permanent right of residence under article 16 of the Directive. In keeping with that analysis, FV had not acquired any right of permanent residence before the date of the decision to deport him. Yet, a stubborn Italian, FV argued that the finding in Onuekwere is irrelevant because an EU citizen with no right of permanent residence may nonetheless acquire a right to enhanced protection from expulsion under article 28 of the Directive. Continue reading →
Share this:TweetShare on TumblrPocketPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Brexit, Cases, Citizens Directive, Citizenship and Nationality, CJEU, Court of Appeal, Deportation, Permanent Residence, Proportionality, UKSC	|
Analysis: Immigration Act 2016	Posted on August 2, 2016	by mkp A hostile environment hitting wrongdoing from every angle has been in the making for a long time. The Immigration Act 2016 builds on the foundations laid by the “flagship” Immigration Act 2014. The public tends to view foreigners as stealing local jobs and accuses them of driving wages down and pushing house prices up. This convenient grievance makes it fashionable to use immigration as a trump card to stir up anxieties with disgruntled locals. For example, the present transport secretary, Chris Grayling, who remained highly unpopular during his stint as former justice secretary, stressed that migration “will change the face of our country forever”. The popularity of migrant bashing and the opportunities that come with it are irresistible for power hungry individuals in search of a career boost. Only recently slippery politicians used the panic surrounding immigration as a convenient weapon to arouse the public’s prejudices in order to swing the referendum vote in favour of Brexit. It seems to have been a worthless thing to vote for because the influx of foreigners into the UK will not diminish. Fortifying earlier measures, the new Act remains firmly rooted in the belief that sweeping legislative changes can cure the problems posed by immigration. The paradox is that trying to fix up the shambolic immigration system with constant changes to the statute book is virtually incapable of being part of the cure. The trend of keeping things in a state of flux causes uncertainty and the dizzying variations underpinning changes in the law are part of the disease. It is manifestly clear that standards cannot be met despite constant hikes in fees. Theresa May’s failure to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and the ultimate abandonment of this goal altogether by Amber Rudd represents wholesale failure. So from that angle the deficit in public trust could not be greater. Whilst its predecessor legislation targeted the appeals regime and blitzed almost a dozen and a half appeal rights to a meagre four, the new workhorse Act contains a bevy of provisions in relation to access to services, Continue reading →
Share this:TweetShare on TumblrPocketPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Asylum, Brexit, Children, Deportation, ECHR, Economy, Employment, Enforcement, European Union, Fees, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Act 2016, Islam, PBS, Public Interest, s 55 BCIA	|
United Kingdom Immigration Law Blog	Blog at WordPress.com. Send to Email Address