Source: https://asadakhan.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/students-cancellation-curtailment-and-private-life/
Timestamp: 2015-03-06 12:33:48
Document Index: 480835212

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'Art 3', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'Art8', 'Art 3', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ']

Students, cancellation, curtailment and private life | United Kingdom Immigration Law Blog
← Chief Inspector unimpressed with Agency
Statistiken, Gastarbeiter und Wirtschaft →
Students, cancellation, curtailment and private life	Posted on February 27, 2012	by mkp Fiaz (cancellation of leave to remain – fairness) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 57 (IAC) (22 February 2012)
Having one’s leave/visa curtailed is quite a serious matter but to have it cancelled is a lot worse. In this case the appellant (“F”) was a Pakistani who entered the UK as a student in 2006. Subsequently, from time to time, F’s student visa was extended until December 2011.
His last visa application was refused in October 2010. However in February 2011, upon appeal, F was given a visa to complete his studies.
Three weeks later he departed for Pakistan to attend his uncle’s funeral. He re-entered the UK on 11 April 2011 but following questioning and enquiries, owing to a change of circumstances, an immigration officer cancelled F’s visa upon arrival because he wrongly claimed that he was still studying.
On 9 June 2011 the FTT dismissed F’s appeal because, after finally getting his visa earlier in the year, he failed to communicate with his college and did not enrol to resume his studies. Moreover, F mislead an immigration officer by stating that he attended classes prior to departing for Pakistan. This meant that a material change of circumstances within the meaning of the Immigration Rules had occurred and the decision to cancel his visa did not place the UK in breach of its obligations by disrespecting his private life.
Permission to appeal to the UT was granted because although (1) it was for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to satisfy that there had been a material change of circumstances, the FTT expected F, on a balance of probabilities, to prove that there was no such change; and (2) the rules required the change to be since the visa was granted (9 February 2011), but the FTT partially relied on events which preceded that date.
F wanted his appeal to be allowed on the following grounds:
(1) The SSHD failed to establish a material change of circumstances since F’s last visa was granted.
(2) The statutory scheme did not permit cancellation of leave to remain.
(3) It was unfair to exercise the power of cancellation where there was an appropriate and less draconian power of curtailment.
The UT dismissed F’s appeal on each of these grounds.
Under immigration rule 321A a person’s leave to enter or remain can be cancelled on his arrival in, or whilst he is outside, the UK if “there has been such a change in the circumstances of that person’s case since the leave was given that it should be cancelled”. An immigration officer, under the authority of a Chief Immigration Officer, can cancel leave if the ground is made out.
Comparatively, under rule 323A leave pursuant to the points-based system may be curtailed, by rule 323A (d) (i) and (iii) curtailment of leave is available where the migrant fails to commence or ceases studying with the sponsor.
Under article 13, the Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1161) – “the Order”, made pursuant to the SSHD’s statutory powers under section 3B of the Immigration Act 1971 – makes provision for “leave which does not lapse on travel outside common travel area”.
Because it was for more than six months, F’s leave under the Order did not lapse when he left the UK: article 13(7), however enables such leave to be cancelled – by either an immigration officer (if the leave being cancelled was leave to enter) or by the SSHD (where the cancelled leave was leave to remain). Pursuant to article 13(5) such leave to remain, is treated as leave to enter that has been granted prior to entry to the UK for the purposes of Schedule 2, paragraphs 2 and 2A of the Immigration Act 1971 – provisions which allow immigration officers wide-ranging, almost totalitarian, powers whereby upon examination (to the test of “whether there has been such a change in the circumstances of his case”) an officer can cancel leave to enter to a person “who has arrived in the UK with leave to enter which is in force but which was given to him before his arrival”.
In relation to ground 1 the UT explained that while his October 2010 visa appeal was ongoing, F was suspended from attending his sponsoring college. When F finally got his visa in February 2011, he failed to inform the college which meant that his suspension changed from an involuntary direction by the college to a personally instigated “voluntary failure” which was material to his continuing eligibility for a Tier 4 (General) student visa. Fax correspondence between the college and the immigration officer revealed that F’s 40-day absence from the UK meant that he lost his place to study at the college (which would not longer accept him); thus, F’s situation differed materially in comparison to when he was given his visa in February 2011.
Relying on Pitchford LJ, at [37], in SSHD v Boahen [2010] EWCA Civ 595 – “the purpose of the power of cancellation is to ensure proper immigration control, and the use of a visa by a visa national for a visit whose purpose is unauthorised is, on the face of it, a serious matter” – the UT, at [20], decided that the precondition for cancellation was “made out”. Moreover, a sensible reading of rule 321A meant that where leave is granted on appeal for a purpose and it disappears while the appeal is being decided, there was “no reason why that change of circumstance does not continue through to the period when the leave was granted and thus enable cancellation” (at [19]).
In relation to ground 2 the UT, at [28], was “unimpressed” with the argument that the Immigration Act 1971 was restricted to “promoting rules of practice for the administration of the scheme under the statute rather than the administration of the scheme under Orders made pursuant to the statute”. Rather than accepting that the powers of cancellation under the 1971 Act referred to leave to enter and not to remain, at [22] the UT explained that under the Order “leave to remain which remains in force shall be treated on the holder’s arrival as leave to enter”.
At [29] it was also noted that “rather than the rules alone”, the terms of the Order read conjunctively with the 1971 Act (Schedule 2, paragraph 2A) “gave authority to an immigration officer to make the decision in question.”
In relation to ground 3, following authority, at [30] it was agreed that curtailment was discretionary, whereas cancellation was mandatory; the former was exercisable to a Tier 4 (General) student visa; and where the power to curtail is more appropriate cancellation can cause unfairness. Where cancellation is “conspicuously unfair” the decision is not in accordance with the law and the Tribunal is empowered to remake the decision failing which “a lawful decision remains outstanding.”
It was submitted on F’s behalf that the cancellation of his visa was unfair because curtailment, and not cancellation, was “tailor-made” for his case: it would not only allow a judge’s discretion on appeal (which cancellation wouldn’t), but also preserve existing entitlements under section 3D of the 1971 Act. Reliance was placed in Laws LJ’s decision, at [17]–[18], in JM (Liberia) v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1402 – as endorsed by Sedley LJ in TE (Eritrea) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 174 at [15] – to say that pending any appeal F was forced into an “unlawful position” (at [32]). It was further argued that F “was unable to pursue his studies pending the appeal and was thus disadvantaged”.
In appraising the above submissions, at [33] the UT set out six points (listed (a)–(f)) to dismiss F’s appeal; cancellation was appropriate as the purpose of his visa had collapsed and he had voluntarily opted to visit Pakistan without informing his college – he was not a “victim” of circumstances outside his control. Likewise, upon his return to the UK in April 2011, he mislead an immigration officer about his studies. Moreover, given that his purpose had failed he could make a fresh application for entry clearance and since, in April 2011, he was not deemed to have entered the UK within the meaning of the 1971 Act, nothing turned on the JM (Liberia) point; inevitably because F had no connection with the UK apart from his studies, “there was no credible human rights claim why removal was disproportionate.”
At [34], the UT was critical of the expectation that its jurisdiction could be “degraded to a general judicial power to depart from the Rules where the judge thinks such a course appropriate or to turn a mandatory factor into a discretionary one.” Moreover, fairness was procedural and not substantive, thus it was not “an untrammelled exercise of discretion to permit people to remain who have failed to use the previous permission.”
The UT, at [36], was quite angry at the waste of resources in this case because it found that the immigration officer’s cancellation of F’s leave was in fact the right decision to make. Equally, the UT agreed with the FTT’s decision that F’s private life failed to earn him any rights in the UK:
i) An immigration officer has power to cancel a leave to remain which remains in force under article 13(5) of The Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1161).
ii) The provisions of that article are not unlawful for being ultra vires.
iii) A change of circumstances justifying cancellation exists where the basis for the grant of the leave has disappeared: SSHD v Boahen [2010] EWCA Civ 595 applied.
iv) It is possible that a change first occurring before and continuing after the grant of the leave may be “such a change in the circumstances of that person’s case since the leave was given that it should be cancelled”.
v) The powers of curtailment of leave to remain may overlap with the power to cancel leave.
vi) Where either power may be exercised it may be that the duty of fairness requires the leave to be curtailed rather than cancelled.
vii) It is material to whether fairness required curtailment rather than cancellation as to whether the change of circumstance was the responsibility of the claimant or not, and whether he had endeavoured to misrepresent the position during his examination.
viii) The jurisdiction to determine that a decision is not in accordance with the law because of a lack of fairness, is not to be degraded to a general judicial power to depart from the rules where the judge thinks such a course appropriate, or to turn a mandatory factor into a discretionary one: fairness in this context is essentially procedural. Share this:SharePrintEmailShare on TumblrLike this:Like Loading...
Advocate High Courts of Pakistan	View all posts by mkp →	This entry was posted in Arrivals, Article 8, Blake J, ECHR, False Statements and Misrepresentations, Immigration Rules, Pakistan, PBS, Students and tagged Article 8, Cancellation, Curtailment, Departures, Points Based System. Bookmark the permalink.	← Chief Inspector unimpressed with Agency
One Response to Students, cancellation, curtailment and private life
tam says:	October 8, 2012 at 10:02 pm	what he did after
RT @CordeliaLynchC4: Just heard loud chanting whilst speaking to detainee on phone from inside Yarl's Wood. Protests seem to be continuing. 1 day ago
RT @Channel4News: Secret footage reveals life of #Harmondsworth detainees: bit.ly/1BIgwbV by @darshnasoni and brianwhelanhack http… 1 day ago
RT @UKSupremeCourt: Judgment:UKSC dismisses SSHD’s appeal v JB:Jamaica should be designated state under s94– general risk to LGBT persons h… 2 days ago
RT @UKSupremeCourt: Judgment: UKSC allows Met Police’s appeals v T & Catt – police retention of information was lawful http://t.co/uKappnqS… 2 days ago
RT @BAILII: ⓝⓔⓦ Al Fawwaz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 166 (Admin) (02 March 2015): bit.ly/1DKZl91 2 days ago
RT @dawn_com: #ZakirNaik is one of five recipients of the King Faisal International Prize | dawn.com/news/1166900/ http://t.co/D70ggHskfd 3 days ago
RT @Channel4News: Undercover in Yarl's Wood - inside the secretive and notorious immigration detention centre. channel4.com/news/yarls-woo…. Toni… 3 days ago
RT @UNHCRUK: Nearly 1 in 4 of the world's #refugees are now from #Syria - goo.gl/KS049k http://t.co/R0roM6tC5C 5 days ago
RT @UNHCRUK: Sp. Envoy Angelina Jolie listening to survivor's dramatic stories of escape - hear them here: trib.al/RbZJOwM http://t.… 5 days ago
RT @ILPAimmigration: #immigrationact2014 Commencement order no 4 now published, removing appeal rights under Tiers 1, 2 & 5. Comes into eff… 5 days ago
RT @eurorights: Excellent #ECHR factsheet on the Dublin regulation cases. echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_D… 5 days ago
TN & MA (Afghanistan): Is JR an Effective Remedy for UASCs? asadakhan.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/tn-… 5 days ago
TN & MA (Afghanistan): Is JR an Effective Remedy for UASCs? wp.me/pYES9-1rW 5 days ago
AA (Afghanistan): What is the Scope of the Tracing Duty? asadakhan.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/aa-… 5 days ago
AA (Afghanistan): What is the Scope of the Tracing Duty? wp.me/pYES9-1rS 5 days ago
RT @UKSupremeCourt: Judgment next Weds 0945: JB v SSHD: Should Jamaica be designated state on s94(4) list by Art 3 Asylum Order 2003? http:… 1 week ago
RT @thetimes: Cameron's pledge to curb immigration in tatters after net migration rises to 298,000 thetim.es/1LJs6o7 (PA) http://t.co/… 1 week ago
RT @itvnews: Prime Minister's promise to cut net migration has been thoroughly broken, @tombradby reports itv.com/news/story/201… http://t.c… 1 week ago
RT @Channel4News: Net migration figures rise, leaving the PM's promise in tatters #immigration bit.ly/1AOr6MF 1 week ago
RT @ein_website: New 243-page Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules gov.uk/government/upl… 1 week ago
NetworkedBlogsBlog:United Kingdom Immigration Law BlogTopics:Immigration, Human Rights, Law Follow my blog	New Immigration CasesQadeer v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 505 (Admin) (05 March 2015)Brown (Jamaica), R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 8 (4 March 2015)Idris, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (IJR) [2015] UKUT 95 (IAC) (4 February 2015)DN, R (on the application of) (Sri Lanka) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (IJR) [2015] UKUT 97 (IAC) (20 February 2015)Thakral, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (IJR) [2015] UKUT 96 (IAC) (10 February 2015)Virk, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (IJR) [2015] UKUT 94 (IAC) (4 February 2015)Iqbal & Dependants v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 169 (03 March 2015)Fawwaz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 469 (Admin) (02 March 2015)Fawwaz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 468 (Admin) (02 March 2015)Fawwaz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 166 (Admin) (02 March 2015)Ullah, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 337 (Admin) (22 January 2015)MA (Iran) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 417 (10 March 2014)Woodward, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 470 (Admin) (27 February 2015)The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Dumliauskas & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 145 (26 February 2015)PG (USA) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 118 (26 February 2015)The Secretary of State for the Home Department v NA (Pakistan) [2015] EWCA Civ 140 (25 February 2015)Simaei & Anor, R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin returns  Hungary (IJR) [2015] UKUT 83 (IAC) (24 February 2015)Dube (ss.117A-117D) [2015] UKUT 90 (IAC) (24 February 2015)LH and IP (gay men: risk) (CG) [2015] UKUT 73 (IAC) (18 February 2015)The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd [2015] EWHC 311 (TCC) (17 February 2015)Case-Law (Support Bailii)
[EWHC ADMIN] Loncar v County Court In Vukovar (Croatia) [2015] EWHC 548 (Admin) (06 March 2015): bit.ly/1G5zcRZ 53 minutes ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Cockell (t/a Cockell Building Services) v Holton [2015] EWHC 459 (TCC) (06 March 2015): bit.ly/1EtTpT6 1 hour ago
ⓝⓔⓦ CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors (Costs No. 2) [2015] EWHC 481 (TCC) (0... bit.ly/1EtTs19 1 hour ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Loncar v County Court In Vukovar (Croatia) [2015] EWHC 548 (Admin) (06 March 2015): bit.ly/1G5zcRZ 1 hour ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Jagger, R. v [2015] EWCA Crim 348 (19 February 2015): bit.ly/1EtTpSR 1 hour ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Ilia v Appeal Court In Athens (Greece) [2015] EWHC 547 (Admin) (06 March 2015): bit.ly/1EtTrKL 1 hour ago
ⓝⓔⓦ JC & Ors v R. [2015] EWCA Crim 210 (26 February 2015): bit.ly/1KwyiEV 2 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc & Ors [2015] EWHC 566 (Comm) (03 February 2015): bit.ly/1G5eiCt 3 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Qadeer v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 505 (Admin) (05 March 2015): bit.ly/1G5duh0 3 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Northern Lincolnshire & Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Revenue & Customs [2015] UKFTT 103 (TC) (0... bit.ly/1G2nFDd 18 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Senex Investments Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2015] UKFTT 107 (TC) (04 March 2015): bit.ly/1G2nFD2 18 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Chuan Yi Xu v Revenue & Customs [2015] UKFTT 108 (TC) (27 February 2015): bit.ly/1G2nEiv 18 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ MPH Joinery Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2015] UKFTT 106 (TC) (04 March 2015): bit.ly/1G2nE26 18 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Sanders v Revenue & Customs [2015] UKFTT 104 (TC) (04 March 2015): bit.ly/1Equ1xu 18 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Timothy James Consulting Ltd v Wilton (Harassment) [2015] UKEAT 0082_14_0503 (05 March 2015): bit.ly/1GZKA39 20 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ MA & Anor (Children : return : protective order) [2014] EWHC 4730 (Fam) (31 October 2014): bit.ly/1CByw9t 20 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Volcafe Ltd & Ors v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores SA (t/a CSAV) [2015] EWHC 516 (Comm) (05 March 2015): bit.ly/1EQq6uj 20 hours ago
[EWHC FAM] MA & Anor (Children : return : protective order) [2014] EWHC 4730 (Fam) (31 October 2014): bit.ly/1CByw9t 21 hours ago
[EWHC ADMIN] Black, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 528 (Admin) (05 Mar... bit.ly/1CB2AC4 21 hours ago
ⓝⓔⓦ Black, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 528 (Admin) (05 March 2015): bit.ly/1CB2AC4 23 hours ago
Deportation Order Terminates ILR The new rules: Article 8 and Judges
Immigration NewsLondon and south-east see largest increase in foreign-born England residents March 6, 2015 Alan Travis Home affairs editorMigrant population in England increased by 565,000 in three years – study March 6, 2015 Press AssocationGay asylum seekers need our help | Julie Bindel March 5, 2015 Julie BindelUkip is nothing new: the British Brothers’ League was exploiting immigration fears in 1901 March 4, 2015 David RosenbergEd Miliband grills PM over missed immigration targets - video March 4, 2015 Guardian StaffCameron and Miliband at PMQs: Politics Live blog March 4, 2015 Andrew SparrowNigel Farage appears to dump cap on migrants with 'ethical' policy pledge March 4, 2015 Rowena Mason Political correspondentNigel Farage: Ukip will bring immigration levels 'back to normal' – video March 4, 2015 Guardian StaffNigel Farage drops Ukip's 50,000 cap on immigration March 4, 2015 Rowena Mason Political correspondentNigel Farage to propose new immigration watchdog and five-year ban on unskilled migrants March 4, 2015 Rowena Mason, political correspondentBlogroll
UKSC Tweets Judgment next Weds 0945: Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities on housing possession and disability discrimination ow.ly/JXx4S 1 day ago
Judgment next Weds 0945: Wyatt v Vince on whether former wife is entitled to financial relief 20+ years after divorce ow.ly/JXwZm 1 day ago
Judgment nxt Weds 0945:Carlyle v RBS on whether development costs should have been included in written loan agreement ow.ly/JXwUs 1 day ago
Judgment next Weds 0945:Tael One v Morgan Stanley: should premium payments be paid under loan market agreement terms? ow.ly/JXwPa 1 day ago
Judgment Weds 0945: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Hlth Brd - was doctor negligent during patient’s pregnancy & labour? ow.ly/JXwBr 1 day ago
Judgment: UKSC allows Sea Shepherd’s appeal v Fish and Fish – charity not jointly liable for tortious act ow.ly/JUtMy 2 days ago
Judgment: UKSC allows Met Police’s appeals v T & Catt – police retention of information was lawful ow.ly/JUtIY 2 days ago
Judgment:UKSC dismisses SSHD’s appeal v JB:Jamaica should be designated state under s94– general risk to LGBT persons ow.ly/JUtE2 2 days ago
Lord Neuberger gave the Fox #IntellectualProperty Lecture in Toronto on 20 Feb: supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-15… 3 days ago
Judgment nxt Weds 0945:Catt/T v Comm Police of Metropolis: whether police retention of information breaches Art8 ECHR ow.ly/JFHKP 1 week ago
Judgment next Weds 0945: Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish on whether Sea Shepherd UK is liable in tort by common design ow.ly/JFHBH 1 week ago
Judgment next Weds 0945: JB v SSHD: Should Jamaica be designated state on s94(4) list by Art 3 Asylum Order 2003? ow.ly/JFHui 1 week ago
Lord Neuberger gave the closing address at the Global Law Summit yesterday ow.ly/JFuJV 1 week ago
Today’s judgments in Rotherham Boro Council v BIS SoS and Newhaven Port v E.Sussex Co Council now on YouTube ow.ly/JCWNY 1 week ago
UKSC allows Newhaven Port & Properties’ appeal v E.Sussex Co Council - West Beach cannot be made village green ow.ly/JCN4y 1 week ago
Judgment:UKSC dismisses Rotherham Boro Council & Ors appeal v BIS SoS: allocation of EU Structural Funds not unlawful ow.ly/JCMYc 1 week ago
@TripadvisorFake No papers lodged here yet in this case, Oscar. It would be a number of months before a hearing would be listed. 2 weeks ago
@DeanPunk4eva Civil actions rarely begin in the Supreme Court: we are a court of final appeal. This info may help: supremecourt.uk/procedures/gui… 2 weeks ago
Judgment nxt Weds 0945:Newhaven Port & Properties v E.Sussex Co Council & Or on whether beach should be village green ow.ly/JiVv5 2 weeks ago
Judgment next Weds 0945: Rotherham Borough Council & Ors v SoS for BIS on regional allocation of EU Structural Funds ow.ly/JiVmj 2 weeks ago
Follow me on TwitterMy TweetsCorporate Law Tweets RT @FT: Free to read: With perfect timing, ECB’s Draghi calls end to eurozone crisis on.ft.com/1zQx3oH http://t.co/f4S9WUhUDv 2 hours ago
RT @FT: Good morning from London. Our big story – George Osborne admits RBS error and calls for early sale on.ft.com/1BNxSEt 2 hours ago
RT @ConductCosts: SFO launches investigation into Bank of England auctions amid rigging fears | via @Telegraph telegraph.co.uk/finance/econom… 1 day ago
RT @bbckamal: Here's colleague @Peston on SFO/Bank of England criminal inquiry @BBCNews Did bankers scam the bank rescue scheme? http://t.c… 1 day ago
RT @Citywire: #SFO probes #BankofEngland liquidity auctions during financial crisis, via @CitywireMoney citywire.co.uk/money/sfo-prob… http://t.co/… 1 day ago
RT @guardiannews: SFO launches investigation into Bank of England liquidity auctions d.gu.com/8qqvy2 1 day ago
RT @GovernanceProf: Better #corpgov, but half as many listed #corporations to govern? #board #CEO #institutionalinvestor #privateequity htt… 1 day ago
RT @UKSupremeCourt: Judgment: UKSC allows Sea Shepherd’s appeal v Fish and Fish – charity not jointly liable for tortious act http://t.co/2… 2 days ago
RT @ReutersBiz: HSBC CEO repeats apology, says used Swiss bank to keep pay details private reut.rs/1GunWPS 1 week ago
RT @BBCBreaking: Germany says Greek proposal for loan extension is "not a proposal that leads to a substantial solution" http://t.co/BfInrN… 2 weeks ago
Can we be assured no repetition of th… 3 weeks ago
RT @BBCNews: Tory and Labour party donors held HSBC Swiss accounts bbc.in/1Alp4oy http://t.co/xJnT30EqXj 3 weeks ago
Follow @globalcorplawUKILB on Twitter RT @CordeliaLynchC4: Just heard loud chanting whilst speaking to detainee on phone from inside Yarl's Wood. Protests seem to be continuing. 1 day ago
RT @Beingmazeem: Student body calls for 'Human Shield' in Pakistan.. Protecting Hindus playing Holi.. @brownbrumby @rachitseth http://t.co/… 1 hour ago
RT @timesofindia: Human shield to protect Pak Hindus celebrating Holi timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan… 1 hour ago
RT @etribune: High-level #German delegation to visit #Pakistan in April tribune.com.pk/story/848784/h… http://t.co/mROXdMjeX9 1 hour ago
RT @FT: Our most-read article right now - Marine Le Pen lays out radical vision to govern France on.ft.com/1aPA4AU http://t.co/X3FhL3Z… 2 hours ago
RT @CNNPolitics: 10 questions about #BibiSpeech: cnn.it/1Eej3wq http://t.co/0TfWIgI6RK 2 days ago
RT @etribune: Giving recommendations: Judicial magistrates nominated for military courts tribune.com.pk/story/846671/g… #Karachi http://t.co/EDvvyW… 3 days ago
RT @Channel4News: #JihadiJohn unmasked: @UK_CAGE’s Asim Qureshi on Mohammed Emwazi who he knew - watch #c4news youtube.com/watch?v=0X7Cwl… 1 week ago
#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #JihadiJohn http://t.co/SEFMxx6gPT 1 week ago
RT @AJEnglish: More than 100 men and boys kidnapped by ISIL in Iraq aje.io/fqn6 1 week ago
RT @AJStream: Austria passes controversial 'Islam law': ow.ly/JEjS7 #Islamgesetz http://t.co/MJzkrocBJ8 1 week ago
RT @etribune: Rangers and police operation to start in #Shikarpur: #Sindh CM tribune.com.pk/story/840867/r… http://t.co/2cflhaAAm6 2 weeks ago
RT @AsimBajwaISPR: COAS mtng Afgn President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Dr Abdullah Abdullah in Kabul today http://t.co/fmkWh3yfNP 2 weeks ago