Abubakar v Entry Clearance Officer (Sannaa)  EWCA Civ 377 (28 March 2012 – read the judgment here
This case before the Court of Appeal dealt with the interpretation of rule 317 (iva) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395) post Mahad. Rule 317 (iva) applies to parents, grandparents and other dependant relatives seeking indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK. It stipulates that applicants and any dependants are adequately maintained without recourse to public funds. Continue reading
JD (Congo) WN (Gambia) ES(Iran) MR (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 327
By section 13(6) of the TCEA 2007, and the 2008 Order, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is not to be granted unless a proposed appeal would raise some important point of principle or practice, or that there is some compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case. This is known as the ‘second tier appeals test’, and is something JCWI campaigned against in the past.
This case before the Court of Appeal looked at how the ‘compelling reason’ head of the ‘second-tier appeals test’ applies in two different scenarios. The first is where appellants succeed before the First Tier Tribunal, but proceed to fail in the Upper Tribunal following a successful appeal by the SSHD. The second is where the appellants fail twice in the tribunals system but the original FTT adverse decision is set aside because it contains a material error in circumstances where the UT goes on to remake the decision and dismiss it at appeal. Continue reading
The Government has today laid a ministerial statement in Parliament outlining various worring changes to the Immigration Rules. Most of the changes are due to take effect on 6 April 2012, although some of the changes to Tier 2 will affect those who were granted leave after 6 April 2011.Key changes as identified by UKBA on their website are as follows:
Tier 2 – skilled workers
- Limiting the total amount of temporary leave that may be granted to a Tier 2 migrant to 6 years (which applies to those who entered after 6 April 2011).
- Introducing a new minimum pay requirement of £35,000 or the appropriate rate for the job, for Tier 2 general and sportsperson migrants who wish to settle here from April 2016 (with exemptions for those in PhD level and shortage occupation categories).
- Introducing a ‘cooling-off period’ across all the Tier 2 routes. Tier 2 migrants will Continue reading
Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy application no. 27765/09
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has today issued judgment in relation to Italy’s push back policy in which vessels carrying Somali and Eritrean nationals from Libya and heading to Italy were intercepted on the high seas 35 miles south of Lampedusa.
The Grand Chamber held:
1.The applicants fell within the jursidiction of Italy for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR
2. There had been two violations of Article 3 ECHR because the applicants had been exposed to the risk of ill-treatment in Libya and of repatriation to Somalia or Eritrea;
3. There had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsions)
4. There had been a violation of Article 13 ECHR (right to effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR.
You can read the Court’s press release for a summary of the case and its facts and you can read the full judgment here.
The Queen (on the application of New London College Limited) and SSHD  EWCA Civ 51
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal by a private limited company which provides further education courses. Continue reading
At the recent meeting organised by Pupil’s Rights, and facilitated by JCWI, we were delighted to have been joined by barrister, Edward Nicholson from No. 5 Chambers. Whilst students spoke about the immigration and other problems they were encountering as a result of revocation of licences of their colleges, Edward spoke about his pending, and very interesting legal challenges on behalf of New London College – these have implications for the lawfulness of the sponsorship regime. Continue reading
The ECJ has today issued its judgment inthe cases of C-411/10 NS & Others v SSHD and C-493/10 M.E. and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
The ECJ press release is here. You can see our previous more detailed post on the AG’s opinion in this case here. The Grand Chamber has ruled:
1. The decision adopted by a Member State on the basis of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (i.e. Dublin II)establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum Continue reading
R (on the application of Chapti & Ors) v SSHD – interventions by JCWI and Liberty CO/1183/11435/1141/2010
This was a challenge in the High Court before Mr Justice Beaston to the legality of amended paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules which came into effect on 29.11.11.
As amended, paragraph 281 requires spouses and partners of British citizens/persons settled/being admitted for settlement in the UK, to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of English language (at A1 standard of the Common European Framework). Applicants are required to do this through providing formal documentation in the form of language test certificates from approved providers that verify their speaking and linguistic capacities at the requisite level. Continue reading
MA & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1446 (01 December 2011
This is an interesting case that could ultimately have implications for EU wide state practice with regards to unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The case concerned three unconnected, unaccompained minors who had sought asylum in the UK having previously claimed asylum in another Member State in the European Union. Continue reading
AO & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 3088 (Admin) (25 November 2011)
This was a challenge to SSHD’s policy on the type of leave granted to foreign national prisoners (FNPs) in circumstances where their removal would breach the ECHR.
Currently it is UKBA policy to exclude migrants from humanitarian protection status (HPS) in circumstances where they have committed crimes Continue reading