THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 20 January 2006 On 07 March Before MR P R LANE (SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE) SIR JEFFREY JAMES. Between.

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 20 January 2006 On 07 March Before MR P R LANE (SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE) SIR JEFFREY JAMES. Between."

Transcription

1 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal SY and Others (EEA regulation 10(1) dependancy alone insufficient) Sri Lanka [2006] THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Promulgated On 20 January 2006 On 07 March 2006 Before MR P R LANE (SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE) SIR JEFFREY JAMES Between Appellants and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent Representation: For the Appellants For the Respondent: Miss E Power, Solicitor, of the Windsor and Merton Law Centre Mr M Montilla, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer LS (EEA Regulations 2000 Meaning of Dependant ) Sri Lanka [2005] UKAIT is not authority for the proposition that, once a person has shown that he is dependent on an EEA national or his spouse, the person concerned is entitled without more to an EEA family permit or a residence document, as the case may be. As the wording of regulation 10(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 makes plain, the respondent has a discretion whether to grant such a permit and that discretion is not incompatible with the underlying EEA legislation. DETERMINATION AND REASONS 1

2 1. The appellants are all citizens of Sri Lanka, born respectively on 3 March 1969, 11 September 1966, 23 August 1968 and 20 November They are all relatives of two citizens of the Netherlands, of Sri Lankan origin, to whom we shall refer as SM and JR. SM is working in the United Kingdom in a self-employed capacity and JR has been issued with a residence permit as his spouse. The first appellant is the sister of JR. The fourth appellant is married to the first appellant. The second and third appellants are married to sisters of JR. 2. On 23 December 2004 the appellants applied for residence documents to be issued to them under regulation 10 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2000 ( the 2000 Regulations ). On 22 March 2005 the respondent decided to refuse to issue the appellants with such documents. The respondent's notices of decision are in the same form in respect of each of the four appellants. The first appellant is described in her notice of decision as an adult aged sister of JR, whilst the second, third and fourth appellants are each described as an adult aged brother-in-law of JR. Each notice contains the statement that the respondent was satisfied that you have failed to demonstrate that you are generally dependent upon your EEA family member and the Secretary of State is not prepared to issue the confirmation that you seek. 3. The appellants appealed against these decisions to an Immigration Judge, Mr N. Froom, sitting at Hatton Cross, who by a determination promulgated on 6 October 2005 dismissed the appellants appeals. On 19 October 2005, reconsideration of the Immigration Judge s decision was ordered under section103a of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act The grounds upon which reconsideration was ordered observe that the Immigration Judge, having found that each of the appellants was dependent upon JR, erred in law in deciding nevertheless to dismiss the appeals on the basis that the decision whether to issue a residence permit under regulation 10 was a discretionary one, and that none of the appellants merited the exercise of discretion in his or her favour. The grounds contend that, having found the appellants to be dependent on an EEA national or his spouse, that is to say, JR, the respondent s stated reason for refusing each of the applications was wrong and the Immigration Judge ought therefore to have found that residence documents should be issued to the appellants. The grounds cite LS (EEA regulations 2000 Meaning of Dependant ) Sri Lanka [2005] UKAIT as authority for the proposition that, once dependancy has been established as a matter of fact, the appeals fell to be allowed. 5. Regulation 10 of the 2000 Regulations reads as follows: 10. Dependants and members of the household of EEA nationals (1) If a person satisfies any of the conditions in paragraph (4), and if in all the circumstances it appears to the decisionmaker appropriate to do so, the decision-maker may issue to that person an EEA family permit, a residence permit or a residence document (as the case may be). 2

3 (2) Where a permit or document has been issued under paragraph (1), these Regulations apply to the holder of the permit or document as if he were the family member of an EEA national and the permit or document had been issued to him under regulations 13 or 15. (3) Without prejudice to regulation 22, a decision-maker may revoke (or refuse to renew) a permit or document issued under paragraph (1) if he decides that the holder no longer satisfies any of the conditions in paragraph (4). (4) The conditions are that the person is a relative of an EEA national or his spouse and (a) (b) (c) is dependent on the EEA national or his spouse; is living as part of the EEA national s household outside the United Kingdom; or was living as part of the EEA national s household before the EEA national came to the United Kingdom. (5) However, for those purposes EEA national does not include- (a) (b) an EEA national who is in the United Kingdom as a self-sufficient person, a retired person or a student; an EEA national who, when he is in the United Kingdom, will be a person referred to in sub-paragraph (a). 6. Although the appellants advisors and the Immigration Judge have referred from time to time in the course of these appeals to permits, it is relevant to observe that what each of the appellants sought, and were refused, was a residence document, which is defined in regulation 2 of the 2002 Regulations as follows: residence document means a document issued to a person who is not an EEA national, in accordance with regulations 10 or 15, as proof of the holder s right to residence in the United Kingdom. 7. Before the Immigration Judge, the respondent argued that the appellants appeals should be dismissed for three reasons: first, some or all of the appellants were not relatives of SM; secondly, at least some of the appellants were not dependent because they were themselves working; and thirdly, regulation 10 of the 2000 Regulations created a discretionary power and the exercise of that power in the present cases had been appropriate (paragraph 25 of the determination). The Immigration Judge found in favour of the appellants in respect of the first and 3

4 second issues but, as we have already observed, he found against them on the third. 8. At paragraph 19 of his determination, the Immigration Judge set out the facts found by him. Each of the appellants lived in a household comprising himself or herself, SM, JR and the children of JR and SM. All of the appellants were residing in the United Kingdom at the time when SM and JR exercised their Treaty rights in coming to the United Kingdom from the Netherlands in August The appellants are all failed asylum seekers. The Immigration Judge found that the first, third and fourth appellants earned enough to make relatively significant contributions to the household expenses, albeit that they are in low-paid employment. 9. In deciding whether the appellants were relatives, the Immigration Judge considered the determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in PB and Others (Goa: EEA discretionary permit; interpretation) India [2005] UKIAT The Immigration Judge noted that the Tribunal in that case found that relative must be intended to have a wider meaning than family member (paragraph 9 of that determination). The Immigration Judge also observed that it was sufficient for a person to be a relative, either of the person exercising Treaty rights or of that person s spouse. In the present case, the appellants were related to JR. The Immigration Judge found that there can be no question that [the first appellant] qualifies as her sister. The other three appellants are JR s brothers-in-law. There is no requirement for a blood relationship. I would find that all the appellants are relatives for the purpose of [regulation] 10(4) (paragraph 21). 10. The Immigration Judge, at paragraph 22 of his determination, found that PB also assisted him in finding that dependancy for the purposes of the 2000 Regulations is a question of fact and there is no requirement that the dependancy be of necessity. The Immigration Judge found as a fact that the family comprising the appellants, SM and JR, lived on the basis of a pooled income and shared expenses but that the house in which they lived was provided by SM and JR, who had purchased the property before moving to the United Kingdom, with a view to providing a home large enough for all of them to reside in. Particularly bearing in mind the issue of accommodation, the Immigration Judge found that all the appellants are mutually dependent with each other and JR and SM. Although the Immigration Judge did not exclude an element of emotional dependancy, he noted that the evidence on that issue was not developed and I give most weight to the material dependancy. I find all the appellants are dependent. 11. No reply has been filed by the respondent, seeking to uphold the dismissal of the appeals on the basis that the Immigration Judge was wrong to find in favour of the appellants on the issues of relationship and dependancy. At paragraph 23 of the determination, the Immigration Judge turned to the issue of whether the exercise of discretion by the respondent not to issue permits had been correctly made. As we shall later explain, the Immigration Judge fell into error by assuming that the respondent, in the notices of decision, had in fact exercised a discretion under regulation 10 of the 2000 Regulations. In considering the issue of discretion, the Immigration Judge had regard to chapter 2 of the respondent's European Directorate Instructions Residence Documents (non-eea Family Members of EEA Nationals). 4

5 12. Paragraph 2.4 of those Instructions observes that regulation 10 of the 2000 Regulations covers more distant family members than the spouse, children and dependants in the ascending line of an EEA national or of his or her spouse (see regulation 6 ( family member )). Paragraph 2.4 gives guidance to the respondent's caseworkers on the practical operation of regulation 10. The Immigration Judge set out in his determination the following passage from chapter 2.4: When deciding whether it is appropriate in all the circumstances to issue a residence permit/document, caseworkers will need to assess whether refusing the family member would deter the EEA national from exercising his/her treaty rights or would create an effective obstacle to exercise of Treaty rights. Each case must be assessed on an individual basis but an example of where it might be appropriate to issue a residence permit/document would be if the family member were very elderly or incapacitated. In assessing such cases, it would be important to consider whether there were any relatives to care for them in their home country. Cases falling for refusal Where an applicant has produced evidence that they are financially dependent on the EEA national, (for instance they may be currently unemployed) caseworkers should consider whether there is any reason to suggest that the EEA national could not send money back to the third country national s home country. (authors emphases). In considering cases under Article 10 (sic) we would normally refuse those who have for example: - lived in a third country whilst the EEA national has resided in another Member State prior to entering the United Kingdom; - lived as part of the EEA national s household many years ago; - have their own family unit (unless there are sufficient compassionate circumstances). 14. Having set out those extracts from chapter 2.4 of the EDI, the Immigration Judge concluded as follows: 24. PB India, when discussing [regulation] 10(4)(c) also considers the general approach to interpreting the Regulations. At paragraph 11 the Tribunal stated, The purpose of the Regulations we are considering is to enable a qualified person that is to say, an EU national exercising Treaty rights to exercise his rights freely, without being hindered or discouraged by having to leave family members 5

6 behind when he exercises his rights. I do not agree with Miss Power [the appellants solicitor] that the Tribunal were there solely concerned with 10(4)(c). The authors of Freedom of Movement of Persons in the Enlarged European Union, first edition, suggest a similar approach. For example, at , they note the ECJ s consideration of whether exclusion would constitute an obstacle to free movement in Baumbast C-413/ On the facts of this case, all the appellants were already residing in the UK, when SM and JR moved here in exercise of Treaty rights. JR had lost touch with SA and other family members for many years after leaving Sri Lanka. SM and JR moved as a family with their children, who had been residing with them in the Netherlands, although [...] had gone ahead. In no sense can the decision be considered as an obstacle to that exercise of free movement. JR and SM have welcomed JR's extended family into their home but that occurred extraneously to the exercise of Treaty rights. In fact it was only made possible by the exercise of Treaty rights by JR and SM. 26. I have balanced all the circumstances, including the dependancy. However, I note [the first and fourth appellants] have their own family unit. [The second and third appellants] are temporarily separated from their wives. The appellants are all relatively young and have no health problems. I do not consider the present situation is appropriate for a positive exercise of discretion and I dismiss the appeals. 15. For the appellants, Miss Power s primary submission was essentially as follows. Once the Immigration Judge had found as a fact that the appellants were relatives of the spouse of an EEA national and that they were dependent upon that person, or the EEA national, the appeal fell to be allowed without more, and the Immigration Judge was accordingly wrong in law to rely upon a discretion that does not in reality exist. Both in the grounds accompanying the application for reconsideration and at the hearing before the Tribunal on 20 January 2006, Miss Power sought to rely upon the reported determination of the Tribunal in LS, which was notified on 29 September 2005 (the date on which the Immigration Judge heard the appellants appeals). The Tribunal in LS considered the question of whether dependancy for the purposes of regulation 10 of the 2000 Regulations required a finding of dependancy of necessity. At paragraphs 6 and 7 of its determination, the Tribunal found as follows: 6. Even if dependancy of itself be required, it would in our view be arguable that it was satisfied in this case: it was because British legislation prevented the appellant from working that he had to rely on the sponsor. However, the only authority to which we were referred by either side as to the meaning of 6

7 dependant in the European legislation was (by Mr Mukherjee) Lebon (ECJ case 316/85,) judgment 18 June 1987). Lebon dealt not with freedom of movement, but with entitlement to benefits under regulation 10 of Regulation 1612/68: however, 1612/68 was the foundation for our 2000 Regulations... There is in our view no reason to interpret dependent in different ways for the purposes of the same piece of European legislation. What Lebon decided, on the point in issue (see ruling 2) was this: The status of dependent member of a workers family... is the result of a factual situation, namely the provision of support by the worker, without there being any need to determine the reasons for recourse to the worker s support. 7. While strictly nothing we say on this point is necessary to our decision, if the withdrawal of permission to work meant that the appellant was on any conceivable test dependent on the sponsor by the date of the decision under appeal, we have to say that in our view Lebon means that, if a claimant is at the date of the decision dependent on a European Union citizen exercising Treaty rights here as an ordinary matter of fact (and clearly financial dependancy is what is meant here), then there is no room for doubt or for going into the reasons for the dependancy. It follows that this appeal must be allowed. 16. We do not consider that the last sentence of paragraph 7 of the Tribunal s determination in LS can properly be said to be support for the proposition that, once dependency is found, the discretionary power in the decision-maker conferred by the opening words of regulation 10(1) must be disregarded. Miss Power, who was the instructing solicitor for the appellant in LS, told us that this had, in fact, been the thrust of the skeleton argument that had been put before the Tribunal in LS. That may be so but for whatever reason the Tribunal in that case did not have the benefit of hearing argument on the matter. Whatever may have been the respondent's stance in LS, Mr Montilla, who appeared for the respondent before us, vigorously argued that regulation 10(1) could not be given such an interpretation. 17. This Tribunal has no doubt that, as a matter of statutory construction, the opening words of regulation 10(1) mean what they say. If a person satisfies any of the three conditions specified in regulation 10(4), the decision-maker, which, for present purposes, means the Secretary of State (see regulation 2 (1)) may issue that person with the requisite document if in all the circumstances it appears to the decision-maker appropriate to do so. If it does not appear appropriate, then (subject to the Wednesbury principle), the decision-maker does not have to issue the document. As is plain from the determination in PB, a clear distinction is drawn in the 2000 Regulations between a family member, who is entitled to the relevant document, and those who must rely upon regulation 10. In PB, the decision-maker 7

8 had erred in failing to consider the position by reference to regulation 10(4)(c), as a person who had been living as part of the EEA national s household before the latter came to the United Kingdom: It is however common ground that the Entry Clearance Officer ought to have considered whether [the appellants] fall within Regulations 10(4)(c) and, if so, ought further to have considered whether to exercise his discretion in their favour (paragraph 14 of the determination). The Tribunal in PB was, accordingly, in no doubt that satisfaction of regulation 10(4) was a necessary but, nevertheless, not a sufficient condition to succeed under that regulation. 18. Miss Power s alternative submission was that, regardless of what the wording of regulation 10(1) might be, the underlying EEA legislation confers no discretion upon the decision-maker to refuse to issue a permit or document to a person who satisfies regulation 10(4). 19. It is common ground that the 2000 Regulations are intended to give effect to relevant provisions of Regulation (EEC No. 1612/68) of the Council of 15 October 1968 on Freedom of Movement for Workers within the Community ( the EEC Regulation ). The Preamble to the EEC Regulation makes it plain that the purpose is that the freedom of movement for workers should be secured within the Community ; that such freedom of movement constitutes a fundamental right of workers and their families, and that mobility of labour within the Community must be one of the means by which the worker is guaranteed the possibility of improving his living and working conditions and promoting his social advancement, while helping to satisfy the requirements of the economies of the Member States ; and that that freedom of movement, in order that it may be exercised, requires that obstacles to the mobility of workers shall be eliminated, in particular as regards the worker s rights to be joined by his family and the conditions for the integration of that family into the host country. 20. Article 10 of the EEC Regulation reads as follows: Article10 1. The following shall, irrespective of their nationality, have the right to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one member state and who is employed in the territory of another member state: (a) his spouse and their descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependant (b) dependent relatives in the ascending line of the worker and his spouse. 8

9 2. Member states shall facilitate the admission of any member of the family not coming within the provisions of paragraph 1 if dependent on the worker referred to above or living under his roof in the country whence he comes. 3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the worker must have available for his family housing considered as normal for native workers in the region where he is employed; this provision must, however must not give rise to discrimination between national workers and workers from the other member states. 21. Miss Power submitted that the word facilitate in Article 10(2) of the EEC Regulation did not entitle the United Kingdom government to confer upon itself a discretion in respect of the admission of members of the family not coming within Article 10(1). Relying upon the dictionary definition of facilitate as to make easy, she contended that, once a person showed himself to be a member of the family of the worker and to be dependent on that worker or living under the same roof in the country whence he came, there is a legal presumption that that family member shall be admitted to the United Kingdom. 22. The Tribunal does not find that paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the EEC Regulation 1612/68 is incompatible with regulation 10(1) of the 2000 Regulations so as to entitle us to disregard the discretionary aspect of Regulation 10(1). On any reading, paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the EEC Regulation is not conferring upon the member of the family any right of admission to a Member State. A clear distinction is being drawn between those falling within paragraph 1 (who have such a right) and those having to rely upon paragraph 2. The existence of the discretion in regulation 10(1) of the 2000 Regulations is, we find, perfectly compatible with the underlying EEC Regulation. 23. As we have already observed, the respondent has, through its European Directorate, produced instructions to its caseworkers on how to exercise the discretion in regulation 10(1). Immediately before the paragraph from the EDI quoted by the Immigration Judge (see paragraph 12 above), there is to be found the following statement: The Directives (sic) refer to facilitating or favouring the admission of any member of the family who meets any of the above conditions providing that a person falls within one of these categories, you may issue a residence permit or residence document if in all the circumstances it applies appropriate to do so (authors emphases). The reference to the above conditions is a reference to those contained in regulation 10(4)(a) to (c). 24. As is plain from the paragraph which follows the one just quoted, the United Kingdom government has seen fit to give effect to the requirement upon it to facilitate admission by focussing on the underlying purpose of the EEA Regulation, 9

10 as set out in its Preamble. The EDI also emphasises that each case must be assessed on an individual basis, although examples are given of cases where the decision maker would normally refuse an application. Each of the three examples given is one where, in reality, the EEA national is unlikely to be able to show that his exercise, or continued exercise, of his rights as a worker is connected with the presence of the family member concerned. For our part, the Tribunal is satisfied that the wording of regulation 10(1), and that of chapter 2.4 of the EDI, is compatible with the provisions of Article 10 of the EEC Regulation. In any event, it is plainly not the case that an appellant is entitled to have his appeal allowed, regardless of regulation 10(1) of the 2000 Regulations, provided only that he has satisfied regulation 10(4). 25. Miss Power submitted that the issuing of a residence document was, strictly speaking, immaterial in that the appellants had an underling EEC right to be in the United Kingdom. That submission is, we find, erroneous. As we have seen, a distinction is drawn between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the EEC Regulation. A person falling within paragraph 2 has no right of entry to the United Kingdom unless and until the United Kingdom government has facilitated his admission to this country. That point is clearly brought out by regulation 10(2) of the 2000 Regulations, which provide that a person is to be treated as if he were the family member of an EEA national only where a permit or document has been issued under paragraph (1). 26. As Mr Montilla conceded at the reconsideration hearing, the Immigration Judge in the present case erred in law in that he wrongly assumed that the respondent had exercised his discretion not to issue the residence documents. As is plain from each of the notices of decision, the respondent never turned his mind to the question of whether the appellants were entitled to the positive exercise of his discretionary power under regulation 10(1). This is because the respondent took the view that each of the appellants had failed to demonstrate that he or she was genuinely dependant upon JR. It might have been possible in the notice of decision for the respondent to have stated that, regardless of that issue, he would not have exercised his discretion in favour of the appellants. However, that is not what he did and the Tribunal can see the logic in refusing to make what at that stage the respondent (albeit wrongly, as it turns out) regarded as a purely hypothetical decision. 27. The Immigration Judge was, accordingly, wrong to assume that an appeal lay to him in respect of a decision under regulation 10(1) that had not been made. The effect of the Immigration Judge s findings on dependancy (which have not been challenged by the respondent) was that the respondent needed to consider whether to exercise his discretion under regulation 10(1) in favour of the appellants. The fact that the Immigration Judge found that, as far as he was concerned, the discretion should not be exercised did not entitle him to dismiss the appeals. The decisions, as contained in the relevant notices, were incomplete. The Immigration Judge, ought, accordingly, to have found that, in the light of his findings on dependancy, those decisions were not in accordance with the law and remained before the Secretary of State to reach decisions under regulation 10(1). That discretionary decision cannot be taken for the first time by the Tribunal, if it has not been made by the respondent. 10

11 28. The Immigration Judge made a material error of law and we accordingly substitute for his decision, dismissing the appellants appeals, a decision allowing those appeals to the extent that the respondent s decisions are not in accordance with the law and the applications of the appellants accordingly remain outstanding before him. Signed Date: 3 March 2006 P R Lane Senior Immigration Judge 11

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL ST and others (Article 3.2: Scope of regulations) India [2007] UKAIT 00078 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Birmingham 13 July 2007 Date of Hearing: Before: Mr C M G Ockelton,

More information

Ihemedu (OFMs meaning) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00340(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE STOREY. Between

Ihemedu (OFMs meaning) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00340(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE STOREY. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ihemedu (OFMs meaning) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00340(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 16 May 2011 Determination Promulgated 17 August 2011 Before

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL YZ and LX (effect of section 85(4) 2002 Act) China [2005] UKAIT 00157 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House On 1 November 2005 Determination Promulgated 15 November

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AK (Citizens Directive; AP and FP applied) Sri Lanka [2007] UKAIT 00074 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 27 June 2007 Before: Senior Immigration

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL BM and AL (352D(iv); meaning of family unit ) Colombia [2007] UKAIT 00055 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 22 May 2007 Before: Mr Justice Hodge,

More information

Aswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS.

Aswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Aswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 2 November 2011 Determination Promulgated

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 September 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 September 2003 * AKRICH JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 September 2003 * In Case C-109/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL SS & ors (Ankara Agreement no in-country right of appeal) Turkey [2006] UKAIT 00074 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 22 May and 28 June 2006 Notice sent: 29

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL GK (Long residence immigration history) Lebanon [2008] UKAIT 00011 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House on 8 January 2008 Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE STOREY Between

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL JT and others (Polish workers time spent in UK) Poland [2008] UKAIT 00077 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL Heard at: Field House On 15 April 2008 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Before: Senior Immigration Judge Allen

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE NICHOLS SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE SOUTHERN. Between YS YY. and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE NICHOLS SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE SOUTHERN. Between YS YY. and Asylum and Immigration Tribunal YS and YY (Paragraph 352D - British national sponsor former refugee) Ethiopia [2008] UKAIT 00093 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 16 September 2008 Before SENIOR

More information

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered on 7 November

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered on 7 November OPINION OF MR DARMON CASE 267/83 the right of a migrant worker's spouse to install herself with him, the marital relationship cannot be regarded as dissolved so long as it has not been terminated by the

More information

Ukus (discretion: when reviewable) [2012] UKUT 00307(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Mr C.M.G. Ockelton, Vice President Upper Tribunal Judge Jordan

Ukus (discretion: when reviewable) [2012] UKUT 00307(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Mr C.M.G. Ockelton, Vice President Upper Tribunal Judge Jordan Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ukus (discretion: when reviewable) [2012] UKUT 00307(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 6 March 2012 Determination Promulgated Before Mr C.M.G.

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL VW ( Extension ; curtailment of leave) Jamaica [2007] UKAIT 00042 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Birmingham Date of Hearing: 30 March 2007 Date of Promulgation: 25 April

More information

Smith (paragraph 391(a) revocation of deportation order) [2017] UKUT 00166(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN.

Smith (paragraph 391(a) revocation of deportation order) [2017] UKUT 00166(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN. Smith (paragraph 391(a) revocation of deportation order) [2017] UKUT 00166(IAC) Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 11 January 2017 Decision Promulgated

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 26 November 2015 On 18 December 2015 Delivered Orally. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 26 November 2015 On 18 December 2015 Delivered Orally. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN. Between IAC-FH-AR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 November 2015 On 18 December 2015 Delivered Orally Before UPPER

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL TA (Spouse requirements for indefinite leave) Pakistan [2007] UKAIT 00011 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Manchester Date of Hearing: 29 August 2006 Date of Promulgation:

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 30 January 2015 On 30 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 30 January 2015 On 30 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: OA/17192/2013 OA/17193/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 30 January 2015 On 30 January 2015 Before

More information

Samir (FtT Permission to appeal: time) [2013] UKUT 00003(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

Samir (FtT Permission to appeal: time) [2013] UKUT 00003(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Samir (FtT Permission to appeal: time) [2013] UKUT 00003(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 12 September 2012 Before Determination Promulgated

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 6 March 2003 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 6 March 2003 * JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 6 March 2003 * In Case C-466/00, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Immigration Adjudicator (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before

More information

BR (Article 8 - Proportionality - Delay - Shala) Serbia & Montenegro [2004] UKIAT IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

BR (Article 8 - Proportionality - Delay - Shala) Serbia & Montenegro [2004] UKIAT IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BR (Article 8 - Proportionality - Delay - Shala) Serbia & Montenegro [2004] UKIAT 00078 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Before Date heard: 6 April 2004 Date notified: 23 April 2004 DR H H STOREY (VICE PRESIDENT)

More information

Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00443 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at North Shields On 6 May 2011 Determination Promulgated

More information

Glossary of the Main Legal Words and Expressions Used In the Context of Asylum and Immigration

Glossary of the Main Legal Words and Expressions Used In the Context of Asylum and Immigration Glossary of the Main Legal Words and Expressions Used In the Context of Asylum and Immigration Legal: MW 174 December 2018 Revision It is hoped that users of the Migration Watch website may find this glossary

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 October 2017 On 28 December Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 October 2017 On 28 December Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: HU/07739/2015 HU/07742/2015 HU/07744/2015 HU/07748/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 October

More information

Alison Harvey, Legal Director ILPA for AVID 12 June 2015

Alison Harvey, Legal Director ILPA for AVID 12 June 2015 Immigration Act 2014 Alison Harvey, Legal Director ILPA for AVID 12 June 2015 The Immigration Act 2014 has changed the way bail operates. It has put a definition of Article 8 of the European Convention

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL GC (Citizens Directive: UK national s spouse) China [2007] UKAIT 00056 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Hatton Cross 13 April 2007 Dates of Hearing: 8 June 2006 & Before:

More information

TT (Long residence continuous residence interpretation) British Overseas Citizen [2008] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

TT (Long residence continuous residence interpretation) British Overseas Citizen [2008] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before TT (Long residence continuous residence interpretation) British Overseas Citizen [2008] UKAIT 00038 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 8 February 2008 Before SENIOR

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 th February 2015 On 16 th February Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 th February 2015 On 16 th February Before IAC-AH-DN/DH-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/13752/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 th February 2015 On 16 th February

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President Senior Immigration Judge Roberts. Between. and ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, CHENNAI

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President Senior Immigration Judge Roberts. Between. and ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, CHENNAI Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) SD (paragraph 320(11): Forgery) India [2010] UKUT 276 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President

More information

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL AK others (Tribunal Appeal- out of time) Bulgaria * [2004] UKIAT 00201 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: 24 th February 2004 Date Determination notified: 23 rd June 2004 Before: Mr C M G Ockelton

More information

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Given orally at Field House on 5 th December 2016 JR/2426/2016 Field House, Breams Buildings London EC4A 1WR 5 th December 2016 THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF SA) Applicant and

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL VA (Formerly exempt persons: leave) Ghana [2007] UKAIT 00091 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 4 September 2007 Before: Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy

More information

Pembele (Paragraph 399(b)(i) valid leave meaning) [2013] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

Pembele (Paragraph 399(b)(i) valid leave meaning) [2013] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Pembele (Paragraph 399(b)(i) valid leave meaning) [2013] UKUT 00310 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at : Field House On : 18 April 2013 Determination Promulgated

More information

Judgment of the Court of Justice, Zhu and Chen, Case C-200/02 (19 October 2004)

Judgment of the Court of Justice, Zhu and Chen, Case C-200/02 (19 October 2004) Judgment of the Court of Justice, Zhu and Chen, Case C-200/02 (19 October 2004) Caption: It emerges from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 October 2004, in Case C-200/02, Zhu and Chen, that Article

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AA (Spent convictions) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00027 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House 2008 Date of Hearing: 22 January Before: Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy President

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (sitting as a full Court ) 19 October 2004 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (sitting as a full Court ) 19 October 2004 * ZHU AND CHEN JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (sitting as a full Court ) 19 October 2004 * In Case C-200/02, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Immigration Appellate Authority (United Kingdom),

More information

FEANTSA Toolkit. Free Movement of EU citizens! and access to social assistance! Guidance for Homeless Service Providers

FEANTSA Toolkit. Free Movement of EU citizens! and access to social assistance! Guidance for Homeless Service Providers FEANTSA Toolkit Free Movement of EU citizens! and access to social assistance! Guidance for Homeless Service Providers The right to free movement between European Union (EU) Member States is one of the

More information

JUDGMENT. R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

JUDGMENT. R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) Trinity Term [2013] UKSC 49 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1383 JUDGMENT R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger,

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) OA/09937/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGINTY

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) OA/09937/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGINTY Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) OA/09937/2015 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House, London Decision & Reasons Promulgated On the 8 th August 2016 On the 12 th August

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GILL. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant. And

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GILL. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant. And Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/33087/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision Promulgated On 16 June 2017 On 20 June 2017 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GILL

More information

Before: LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW QC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court Between:

Before: LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW QC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court Between: Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 443 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/8217/2008 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 10

More information

JUDGMENT. R (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)

JUDGMENT. R (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) Easter Term [2014] UKSC 28 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1362 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger,

More information

TABLE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC AND CURRENT EC LEGISLATION ON FREE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF UNION CITIZENS WITHIN THE EU

TABLE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC AND CURRENT EC LEGISLATION ON FREE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF UNION CITIZENS WITHIN THE EU TABLE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC AND CURRENT EC LEGISLATION ON FREE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF UNION CITIZENS WITHIN THE EU DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

More information

MAH (dual nationality permanent residence) Canada [2010] UKUT 445 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

MAH (dual nationality permanent residence) Canada [2010] UKUT 445 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) MAH (dual nationality permanent residence) Canada [2010] UKUT 445 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Belfast On 28 October 2010 Determination Promulgated

More information

B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BLAIR Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ABDULLAH Claimant

B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BLAIR Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ABDULLAH Claimant Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1771 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No. CO/11937/2008 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Date:

More information

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 30 May 2017 (1) Case C 165/16. Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 30 May 2017 (1) Case C 165/16. Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department Provisional text OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 30 May 2017 (1) Case C 165/16 Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court

More information

Glossary of the Main Legal Words and Expressions used in the Context of Asylum and Immigration

Glossary of the Main Legal Words and Expressions used in the Context of Asylum and Immigration Briefing Paper 8.0 www.migrationwatchuk.com used in the Context of Asylum and Immigration This revision introduces new definitions of protection claim and public interest considerations, both of which

More information

B e f o r e : LORD JUSTICE AULD LORD JUSTICE WARD and LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER

B e f o r e : LORD JUSTICE AULD LORD JUSTICE WARD and LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWCA Civ 44 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION B e f o r e : Case No. 2001/0437 Royal Courts of Justice

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. 23 July September Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. 23 July September Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport Decision & Reasons Promulgated 23 July 2015 2 September 2015 Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

NEWPORT BC v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES AND BROWNING FERRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD

NEWPORT BC v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES AND BROWNING FERRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD 174 PLANNING PERMISSION FOR CHEMICAL WASTE WORKS Env.L.R. NEWPORT BC v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES AND BROWNING FERRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD COURT OF ApPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) (Staughton L.J.,

More information

Immigration Act 2014 Article 8 ECHR

Immigration Act 2014 Article 8 ECHR Immigration Enforcement Immigration Act 2014 Article 8 ECHR Presented by Criminality Policy Team 2) Aims and Objectives Aim to explain the new Article 8 provisions in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum

More information

In re SCHERER SAAVEDRA

In re SCHERER SAAVEDRA SEVENTY-FIFTH SESSION In re SCHERER SAAVEDRA Judgment 1262 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the complaint filed by Mr. Enrique Scherer Saavedra against the European Southern Observatory (ESO) on

More information

Gheorghiu (reg 24AA EEA Regs relevant factors) [2016] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Gheorghiu (reg 24AA EEA Regs relevant factors) [2016] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Gheorghiu (reg 24AA EEA Regs relevant factors) [2016] UKUT 00024 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 18 November

More information

EM (Sufficiency of Protection - Article 8) Lithuania [2003] UKIAT IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before

EM (Sufficiency of Protection - Article 8) Lithuania [2003] UKIAT IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before EM (Sufficiency of Protection - Article 8) Lithuania [2003] UKIAT 00185 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Heard at Field House On: 6 August 2003 Prepared: 6 August 2003 Before Mr Andrew Jordan Professor DB Casson

More information

R (Mayaya) v SSHD, C4/2011/3273, on appeal from [2011] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2012] 1 All ER 1491

R (Mayaya) v SSHD, C4/2011/3273, on appeal from [2011] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2012] 1 All ER 1491 R (Mayaya) v SSHD, C4/2011/3273, on appeal from [2011] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2012] 1 All ER 1491 Consequences for those formerly excluded from Discretionary Leave or Humanitarian Protection on grounds of

More information

EMN FAMILY REUNIFICATION REPORT SMALL SCALE STUDY IV BY LEILA WRIGHT AND CHRISTINE LARSEN IMMIGRATION RESEARCH AND STATISTICS

EMN FAMILY REUNIFICATION REPORT SMALL SCALE STUDY IV BY LEILA WRIGHT AND CHRISTINE LARSEN IMMIGRATION RESEARCH AND STATISTICS EMN FAMILY REUNIFICATION REPORT SMALL SCALE STUDY IV BY LEILA WRIGHT AND CHRISTINE LARSEN IMMIGRATION RESEARCH AND STATISTICS EMN Small Scale Study IV Family Reunification Definitions The UK s definitions

More information

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT -v- ABBAS

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT -v- ABBAS Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWCA Civ 992 C4/2004/2160 (A) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Royal

More information

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN DELIVERED ON 20 JANUARY 1982

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN DELIVERED ON 20 JANUARY 1982 OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN DELIVERED ON 20 JANUARY 1982 My Lords, The Judicial Division of the Council of State (Raad van State) of the Netherlands has referred three questions to the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) McCloskey J and UT Judge Lindsley.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) McCloskey J and UT Judge Lindsley. Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 5 C2/2015/3947 & C2/2015/3948 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) McCloskey J and UT Judge

More information

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents 2004L0038 EN 30.04.2004 000.003 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B C1 DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 July 2002 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 July 2002 * CARPENTER JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 July 2002 * In Case C-60/00, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between NAWAL AL ABDIN (ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE) and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between NAWAL AL ABDIN (ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE) and IAC-AH-SC-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 9 th September 2015 On 23 rd September 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY BILL HL BILL 66 BRIEFING FOR LORDS REPORT 6 FEBRUARY 2006 CLAUSE 4 ENTRY CLEARANCE APPEALS

IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY BILL HL BILL 66 BRIEFING FOR LORDS REPORT 6 FEBRUARY 2006 CLAUSE 4 ENTRY CLEARANCE APPEALS IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY BILL HL BILL 66 BRIEFING FOR LORDS REPORT 6 FEBRUARY 2006 CLAUSE 4 ENTRY CLEARANCE APPEALS ILPA is a professional association with some 1200 members, who are barristers,

More information

Asylum Support for dependants

Asylum Support for dependants Asylum Support for November 2016 Factsheet 11 In this Factsheet: Definition of a dependant Conditions must meet to be added to a support application Adding additional Adding a new born to support Difficulties

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/26518/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/26518/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/26518/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 March 2018 On 09 April 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before : Mr J Barnes (Chairman) Professor B L Gomes Da Costa JP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT.

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before : Mr J Barnes (Chairman) Professor B L Gomes Da Costa JP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT. jh Heard at Field House KV (Country Information - Jeyachandran - Risk on Return) Sri Lanka [2004] UKIAT 00012 On 15 January 2004 Dictated 16 January 2004 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL notified: 2004... Date

More information

Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community

Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community Official Journal L 257, 19/10/1968 P. 0002-0012 REGULATION (EEC) No 1612/68 OF THE

More information

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 IMMIGRATION (EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA) REGULATIONS 2006 SI 2006/003 2006 No. 003 IMMIGRATION The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 Made - - - - 30th March 2006 Laid before Parliament

More information

And RA (ANONYMITY ORDER MADE) ANONYMITY ORDER

And RA (ANONYMITY ORDER MADE) ANONYMITY ORDER Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: VA / 00331 / 2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 May 2016 On 19 May 2016 Before: UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43140/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Determination Promulgated On 17 th April 2015 On 27 th April 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL MG and VC (EEA Regulations 2006; conducive deportation) Ireland [2006] UKAIT 00053 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 23 May 2005 Before: Mr C M

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On: 30 July 2014 On: 12 August 2014 Prepared: 11 August 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAILER.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On: 30 July 2014 On: 12 August 2014 Prepared: 11 August 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAILER. (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) OA/11539/2013 UPPER TRIBUNAL APPEAL NUMBER: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Determination Promulgated On: 30 July 2014 On: 12 August 2014 Prepared: 11 August

More information

Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 00112 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 19 December 2014 Decision & Reasons Re- Promulgated

More information

1 P a g e. to the GPOW: the Genuine Prospect of Work Test - (1) as a cause of homelessness for EEA migrants. (2) arguments against the test

1 P a g e. to the GPOW: the Genuine Prospect of Work Test - (1) as a cause of homelessness for EEA migrants. (2) arguments against the test 1 P a g e to the GPOW: the Genuine Prospect of Work Test - (1) as a cause of homelessness for EEA migrants (2) arguments against the test Martin Williams Welfare Rights Adviser April 2015 2 P a g e CONTENTS

More information

Ad-Hoc Query on extended family reunification. Requested by FI EMN NCP on 25 th November Compilation produced on 1 st March 2011

Ad-Hoc Query on extended family reunification. Requested by FI EMN NCP on 25 th November Compilation produced on 1 st March 2011 Ad-Hoc Query on extended family reunification Requested by FI EMN NCP on 25 th November 2010 Compilation produced on 1 st March 2011 Responses from Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary,

More information

HU/03276/2015 HU/08769/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 th March 2018 On 18 th April 2018.

HU/03276/2015 HU/08769/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 th March 2018 On 18 th April 2018. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/09516/2015 Appeal Numbers: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 th March 2018 On 18 th April 2018 Before UPPER

More information

1. Why did the UK set up a system of special advocates:

1. Why did the UK set up a system of special advocates: THE UK EXPERIENCE OF SPECIAL ADVOCATES Sir Nicholas Blake, High Court London NOTE: Nicholas Blake was a barrister who acted as special advocate from 1997 to 2007 when he was appointed a judge of the High

More information

Annex A to BG Dated 22 Jan 15. ANNEX K - Adult Children of Former Gurkhas

Annex A to BG Dated 22 Jan 15. ANNEX K - Adult Children of Former Gurkhas Annex A to BG 03.01.01 Dated 22 Jan 15 ANNEX K - Adult Children of Former Gurkhas 1. For the purposes of this guidance, a former Gurkha is a Gurkha who completed their service in the Brigade of Gurkhas

More information

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 21 July 2011 (*) (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Article

More information

Before : DAVID CASEMENT QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Between :

Before : DAVID CASEMENT QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 7 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/5130/2012 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 09/01/2015

More information

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL EA (Article 8 entry clearance- delay) Iraq [2004] UKIAT 00236 Between: Date of Hearing: 3 August 2004 Determination prepared: 3 August 2004 Date Determination notified: 25 August

More information

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill European Union (Withdrawal) Bill COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU, AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENTS AND REASONS [The page and line references are to HL Bill 79, the bill as first printed for the Lords.] LORDS AMENDMENTS

More information

PUBLIC COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 25 November /03 LIMITE MIGR 89

PUBLIC COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 25 November /03 LIMITE MIGR 89 Conseil UE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 5 November 003 3954/03 PUBLIC LIMITE MIGR 89 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS of : Working Party on Migration and Expulsion on : October 003 No. prev. doc. : 986/0

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 March 2018 On 23 April Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 March 2018 On 23 April Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/07910/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 March 2018 On 23 April 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before. Mr Andrew Jordan Mrs S.M. Ward. and DETERMINATION AND REASONS

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before. Mr Andrew Jordan Mrs S.M. Ward. and DETERMINATION AND REASONS AH-AG-V1 JP (Maintenance - Detention Records) Sri Lanka CG [2003] UKIAT 00142 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 23 September 2003 Prepared 23 September 2003

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 June 2015 On 16 June Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MONSON

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 June 2015 On 16 June Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MONSON Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/31368/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 June 2015 On 16 June 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 3 October 2013 (1) Case C-378/12. Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 3 October 2013 (1) Case C-378/12. Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 3 October 2013 (1) Case C-378/12 Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 9 October 2015 On 25 November 2015 Oral determination given following hearing. Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 9 October 2015 On 25 November 2015 Oral determination given following hearing. Before IAC-FH-CK-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 9 October 2015 On 25 November 2015 Oral determination given following

More information

IN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No. 1006/2/1/01. New Court Carey Street London WC2A 2JT 26 March Before:

IN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No. 1006/2/1/01. New Court Carey Street London WC2A 2JT 26 March Before: IN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No. 1006/2/1/01 New Court Carey Street London WC2A 2JT 26 March 2002 Before: SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY (President) MR MICHAEL DAVEY MR DAVID SUMMERS Sitting

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 February

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 February JUDGMENT OF 13. 2. 1985 CASE 267/83 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 February 1985 1 In Case 267/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative

More information

Before: LORD JUSTICE LAWS LORD JUSTICE LLOYD AND LORD JUSTICE GROSS Between: (2) KI (SOMALIA) AND OTHERS

Before: LORD JUSTICE LAWS LORD JUSTICE LLOYD AND LORD JUSTICE GROSS Between: (2) KI (SOMALIA) AND OTHERS Case No: C5/2010/0043 & 1029 & (A) Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 1236 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL [AIT Nos. OA/19807/2008; OA/19802/2008;

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 9 January 2007 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 9 January 2007 * JUDGMENT OF 9. 1. 2007 CASE C-1/05 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 9 January 2007 * In Case C-1/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, made by the Utlänningsnämnden (Sweden),

More information

Draft Copy of LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

Draft Copy of LETTER BEFORE CLAIM Draft Copy of LETTER BEFORE CLAIM We write about the arrangements made by the Home Office for migrants covered by the HSMP judicial review judgment of 8 April 2008. The guidance (entitled HSMP Forum Ltd

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE LORD BURNS (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL) DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE LORD BURNS (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL) DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 August 2017 On 28 September 2017 Before THE HONOURABLE LORD BURNS (SITTING

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 25 February 2015 On 16 March Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCWILLIAM. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 25 February 2015 On 16 March Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCWILLIAM. Between IAC-AH-VP-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/16338/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 25 February 2015 On 16 March 2015

More information

EU (Withdrawal) Bill- Committee stage

EU (Withdrawal) Bill- Committee stage EU (Withdrawal) Bill- Committee stage The Law Society represents, promotes, and supports solicitors, publicising their unique role in providing legal advice, ensuring justice for all and upholding the

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 8 May 2018 On 10 May Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON. Between. KAMAL [A] (anonymity direction not made) and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 8 May 2018 On 10 May Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON. Between. KAMAL [A] (anonymity direction not made) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01921/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons promulgated On 8 May 2018 On 10 May 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL FB and Others (HC 395 para 284: six months ) Bangladesh [2006] UKAIT 00030 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House 2006 2006 Date of Hearing: 7 February Date of Promulgation:

More information

EEA nationals & their family members

EEA nationals & their family members EEA nationals & their family members Immigration Overview 1 Introduction This seminar is designed to provide information to European Economic Area (EEA) nationals or those who have family members who are

More information

Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles) [2017] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles) [2017] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles) [2017] UKUT 00196 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Stoke On 24 November 2016 Promulgated on Before

More information