Source: https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/immigration-law-bulletin-issue-331-1-july-2013
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 05:04:15
Document Index: 306873855

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'Art 17', 'Art 17', 'Art 12', 'Art 16', 'EWCA ', 'Art 6', 'Art 25', 'EWCA ', 'Art 3']

Immigration Law Bulletin - Issue 331 - 1 July 2013 | News | Garden Court Chambers | Leading Barristers located in London, UK
Immigration Law Bulletin - Issue 331 - 1 July 2013
For new Home Office forms for applications made on or after 1 July 2013 click here.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raju & Others [2013] EWCA Civ 754
Allowing the SSHD's appeal from the UT, the CA held that an application is made when para 34G of the Rules says it is made and in order to achieve 75 points for attributes in an application for leave to remain under the PBS in the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) category, the applicant had to have received notification of his recognised bachelor or post-graduate degree by the time the application was submitted and that it was not sufficient, in order to obtain the points, that the notification of the degree award had been received by the time of the SSHD's decision. To read the full judgment click here.
RM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 775
The Court of Appeal held that the Zimbabwean appellant, upon marrying her Spanish husband, acquired the right of permanent residence in the UK pursuant to the terms of Art 17(3) of Council Directive 2004/38/EC, in circumstances where as at the date of the marriage the husband had himself already acquired the right of permanent residence in the UK pursuant to the terms of Art 17(1); and held that her right was not subject to the residence requirements of either Art 12(2) or Art 16(2). To read the full judgment click here.
AR (Iran), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 778
The Court of Appeal rejected the claimant's submission that his removal to Belgium under the Dublin II Regulation was unlawful as being in breach of the terms of the Procedures Directive (2005/85), Art 6(2) which gives each adult having legal capacity the right to make an application for asylum on his/her own behalf (it being argued that Art 25(1) of the Procedures Directive - which provides for asylum applications not to be examined where the Dublin II Regulation applies - did not apply either because the UK's failure to examine the asylum claim here was not in accordance with Dublin II or because the Dublin II decision was flawed for procedural irregularities). The Court of Appeal declined to refer questions to the CJEU. To read the full judgment click here.
AZ (Asylum-'legacy' cases) Afghanistan [2013] UKUT 270 (IAC)
The UT held that where an appellant in an asylum appeal had previously been informed that his case is being considered as a 'legacy case' but no decision under the process had been made, a subsequent immigration decision following a rejection by the SSHD of his asylum claim is not rendered unlawful by reason of the failure to make a decision under the legacy process and there is no obligation on a Tribunal to adjourn an asylum appeal so as to allow for a decision to be made under the legacy process. To read the full determination click here.
ST (Child asylum seekers) Sri Lanka [2013] UKUT 292(IAC)
The UT held that as the wider range of grounds permissible in appeals under 2002 Act, s.82 are not available in s.83 appeals (see s.84(1)&(3)) and that the Tribunal has no power to entertain them, the "best interests of the child" are relevant in s.83 appeals only to the extent that they illuminate a claim that the appellant is a refugee (see s.84(3)) or entitled to humanitarian protection (see FA (Iraq) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 696) on the basis of a hypothetical return at the date of the hearing. The Tribunal is unlikely to be assisted by hearing the evidence of a child who is 12 years old or younger and whenever a judge is considering hearing evidence from a child the issues should be explored with the advocates and the responsible adult accompanying the child and the guidance in the Senior President's Practice Statement of 30 October 2008 'Circumstances Under Which a Child Vulnerable Adult or Sensitive Witness May Give Evidence' should be applied. A judge should alert the advocates when s/he is minded to depart from a favourable assessment of credibility made by the SSHD (see WN (Surendran; credibility) DRC [2004] UKIAT 213.) To read the full determination click here.
TS (Political opponents - risk) Burma CG [2013] UKUT 281 (IAC)
The UT has issued new country guidance on Burma. The main points are that: detention in Burma, even for a short period, carries with it a real risk of serious ill-treatment, contrary to Art 3 of the ECHR and amounting to persecution/serious harm within the meaning of the Qualification Directive. A person is at real risk of being detained in Burma where the authorities regard him or her to be a threat to the stability of the regime or of the Burmese Union. The question of risk of ill-treatment will in general turn upon whether a returnee is detained by the authorities at any stage after return. A person who has a profile of voicing opposition to the government whilst in the UK through participation in demonstrations or attendance at political meetings will not for this reason alone be of sufficient concern to the Burmese authorities to result in detention immediately upon arrival and this is irrespective of whether the UK activity has been driven by opportunistic or genuinely held views and is regardless of the prominence of the profile in this country. Of particular interest - in general, none of the identified risks is reasonably likely to arise if an individual's international prominence is very high. The evidence shows that the government is keen to avoid adverse publicity resulting from the detention of internationally well-known activists. To read the full determination click here.