Hamat (Article 9 - freedom of religion : Afghanistan) [2016] UKUT 286 (IAC) (6 June 2016)

​

Naidu, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 156 (15 March 2016)

Refusal of an application for a business visit visa based on an earlier refusal for the same visa. The Secretary of State failed to consider the new evidence in deciding the application.

 

HN & SA (Afghanistan) (Lead Cases Associated Non-Lead Cases), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 123 (03 March 2016)

From the Decision; The appeal was against the dismissal by the Tribunal of a claim for judicial review brought by the appellants against the respondent Secretary of State in respect of decisions by her, under rule 353 of the Immigration Rules, not to admit as fresh claims for asylum representations made on their behalf by solicitors in March 2015. The claimants were due to be returned on a charter flight.

 

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Begum [2016] EWCA Civ 122 (03 March 2016) 

The SSHD's application for an extension of time was refused.

 

Kreis Warendorf v Alo and Osso v Region Hannover (Directive 2011/95/EU) Joined Cases C-443/14 and C-444/14 (01 March 2016)

This case is related to articles 29 and 33 of the Qualification Directive decided by the ECJ.

 

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ize-Iyamu [2016] EWCA Civ 118 (01 March 2016)

From the headnote; This appeal is concerned with the intricacies of the legislation governing the acquisition of what is known as 'the right of abode', that is, the unrestricted right to live in this country and to enter and leave it without the need to obtain any kind of formal grant of leave under the legislation governing the movement of those who are not British citizens.

 

B, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (recording of leave - date stamps) (IJR) [2016] UKUT 135 (IAC) (26 February 2016)

From the Judgement; The judgments of the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bagga [1991] 1 QB 485 are authority for the proposition that, if there is no practice on the part of the Secretary of State of using a date stamp to record the grant of leave under the Immigration Act 1971, even a 'blameless' individual will be unable to derive any material benefit from that stamp.

 

Robinson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (paragraph 353 - Waqar applied) (IJR) [2016] UKUT 133 (IAC) (16 February 2016)

From the headnote; 

 

1. Notwithstanding the amendments brought about by the Immigration Act 2014 to the types of decisions appealable under s82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, para 353 of HC395 continues to perform a gateway function in respect of access to a right of appeal. Arguments to the contrary, founded upon dicta in[2009] UKSC 7, are misconceived because, as explained in[2010] EWCA Civ 926, inimmigration decisions (of a type that no longer give rise to a right of appeal) had been made so that there was, on that account, a right of appeal. 

2. The argument now advanced, which was not considered by the Upper Tribunal in R (Waqar) v SSHD (statutory appeals/paragraph 353) IJR [2015] 00169 (IAC), founded upon the amendment to the definition of "a human rights claim" found at s113 of the 2002 Act, provided for by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 but not yet implemented, is no basis for doubting that Waqar is correctly decided. 

3. Where the respondent rejects further submissions and goes on to conclude that they do not amount to a fresh claim for the purposes of para 353 of HC 395, it is not implicit that the respondent has made a decision to refuse a human rights claim. Properly understood, the respondent has done precisely the opposite and has declined to make a decision at all. To the extent that the respondent has embarked upon an examination of the merits of the further submissions, she is not making a decision but doing no more than equipping herself to follow the para 353 process. 

 

J.N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie (Directive 2008/115/EC - Directive 2013/33/EU) Case C-601/15 PPU (15 February 2016)

 

Sayaniya, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 85 (10 February 2016)

From the Judgement; "The sole issue in this appeal concerns the applicability of the public law principle that the exercise of discretion in a particular case should not be fettered by over-rigid policies and mandatory rules in the Immigration Rules ("the Rules") made under the Immigration Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act")."

 

Wasif v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 (09 February 2016)

 

Marin v Administracion del Estado and Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS (Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC) Joined Cases C-165/24 and C-304/14. Opinion of AG Szpunar (04 February 2016)

From the Introduction part of the Judgement; The questions raised by the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) concern, essentially, the interpretation of Article 20 TFEU and the scope of that provision, either in the light of the judgments in Zhu and Chen (C‑200/02, EU:C:2004:639) and Ruiz Zambrano (C‑34/09, EU:C:2011:124), or in the light of the judgment in Ruiz Zambrano (C‑34/09, EU:C:2011:124) alone. The factual background to these cases involves third-country nationals who have been refused a residence permit by, or against whom an expulsion order has been made, by the Member State in which their minor dependent children reside and of which those children, citizens of the Union, for whom they are responsible, are nationals. The decisions just mentioned could potentially deprive the children in question of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union. The risk of that happening is the result of the adoption of national measures against the parents, who are third-country nationals, on grounds of their criminal records.

 

Raza, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Bail - conditions - variation - Article 9 ECHR) (IJR) [2016] UKUT 132 (IAC) (1 February 2016) 

 

AS (Ghana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 133 (20 January 2016)

 

Fayad, R (on the application of) v Home Office [2016] EWCA Civ 78 (15 January 2016)

A British overseas citizen who claimed to be entitled to British passport made this application for permission to appeal. Permission was granted.

 

MH (Bangladesh) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1442 (08 December 2015)

An extension of time was granted to an appellant who had filed a notice of appeal two months out of time.

 

Miah (section 117B NIAA 2002 - children) [2016] UKUT 131 (IAC) (23 November 2015)

This appeal is about Article 8 Public Interest Considerations & Section 117B of the 2002 Act and Decision on the Error of Law.