R (on the application of Shehu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Citizens Directive: no suspensive appeals)

Immigration Removal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that the redress procedure required by arts 31 and 35 of European Parliament and did not make it necessary to treat European Economic Area appeals as suspensive, since arrangements could be made, on the conditions in art 31(4) of the Directive, for allowing the subject to submit his defence in person, which was reason enough for declining to treat Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department () as per incuriam for not dealing with art 35 of the Directive.

AXD v Home Office

Immigration Detention. The Queen's Bench Division made findings in relation to the legality of the claimant's immigration detention by the defendant Home Office in relation to two separate periods on the basis of both common law and art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

B and others v Home Office

Immigration Detention. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants were entitled to a declaration that their two periods of immigration detention had been unlawful. The defendant Secretary of State had failed to consider the welfare of the three children and no thought had been given to alternatives to detention, in breach of the Secretary of State's own policy.

R (on the application of Ait-Rabah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to enter. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Algerian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions revoking his leave to enter and detaining him immediately after an interview concerning his proposed marriage to a Slovakian national resident in the United Kingdom.

R (on the application of Cyrus) v Secreaty of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for interim relief, namely, for an order that the defendant Secretary of State should grant or reinstate his indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the United Kingdom pending the resolution of his claim for judicial review and anticipated appeal. The removal of the claimant's ILR had been an automatic consequence of the Secretary of State's erroneous decision to deport him.

*R (on the application of Nouazli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Detention. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by an Afghan national who became permanently resident in the United Kingdom through his marriage to a French citizen, and who had unsuccessfully contended before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, that his detention pending removal after serving a prison sentence had been unlawful and contravened art 27(1) of the Parliament and . The court held that his detention had not been unlawful. Detention under reg 24(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, , did not discriminate without lawful justification against European Economic Area nationals and their family members, and the absence of a time limit had not rendered the appellant's detention unlawful under European Union law.

R (on the application of Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Detention. Following the Administrative Court's previous decision on the claimant's application for judicial review of his immigration detention (see ), it determined that there were no powerful reasons to set the confidentiality of a settlement aside. Further, the claimant was entitled to summarily assessed damages of 3,750 and costs, but discounted by 40%.

Genc v Integrationsministeriet

European Union Immigration. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of of Decision No 1-80 of the Association Council on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Genc and the Danish Ministry of Integration concerning the rejection by the latter of his application for a residence permit in Denmark for the purposes of family reunification.

Gurung v Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi

Immigration Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Nepalese national's appeal concerning the respondent Entry Clearance Officer's (ECO) refusal of his application for entry clearance to settle in the United Kingdom. It considered whether the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in law in having assessed his claim under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as at 2013, rather than as at the date of the ECO's original decision some three years earlier.

*R (on the application of Santos) v Secretary of State for Home Department

European Union Immigration. The Administrative Court awarded the claimant Brazilian national damages of 136,048 for false imprisonment and breach of European Union law. The defendant Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to issue him with a European Economic Area residence card on the basis of his marriage to a European Union citizen.