Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ojo

European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that the respondent's break in dependency from her mother had not interrupted her residence so as to prevent her from acquiring a permanent right to residence under reg15(1)(b) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI2006-1003. The tribunal had been wrong to hold that the provisions of reg3(2) of the Regulations could be applied to the present case by analogy.

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

Immigration Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing his application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (General) migrant under the points based system. The Secretary of State had not failed to consider her policy concerning applications from overstayers and her decision had not been irrational.

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

Immigration Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed the claimant Turkish national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing to grant him leave to remain in order to establish himself in a business, under the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, under paras 4 and 21 of the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control after Entry. The claimant's reliance upon documents he had accumulated whilst in the United Kingdom without leave was a relevant factor.

*AA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal regarding deportation of the respondent, who was an EEA national with a permanent right of residence in the United Kingdom. The court held that, on the true construction of the legislative scheme and case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union, a permanent right of residence would not be lost merely by reason of criminality or a resulting sentence of imprisonment.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Straszewski; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kersys

Immigration Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal against the setting aside of deportation orders she had made in respect of two EEA nationals with a permanent right of residence in the United Kingdom. The court explained the difference between the circumstances for deportation of non-EEA foreign national offenders and EEA offenders and the requirements for the deportation of the latter.

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

Immigration Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of her application for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse of a man present and settled in the UK. The claimant had had leave to remain at the time of applying, the requirement to provide six items of correspondence addressed to her and her partner at the same address was unlawful, and the claimant's previous English language qualification satisfied the Immigration Rules.

TY (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal. The original decision to refuse the appellant an EEA residence card had been made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI2006-1003. No one stop notice had been served under s120 of the . Therefore, the appellant had not been entitled to raise asylum and human rights grounds on appeal, and had been constrained to appealing the original decision under the Regulations.

R (on the application of Huang and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that it had jurisdiction to determine a challenge to the refusal to transfer a 'no time limit' (NTL) stamp from the document given on grant of indefinite leave to remain (ILR) on the basis of false information.Where NTL was applied for following incorrect information which led to ILR, the Secretary of State should notify the claimant of the need to show cause why ILR should not be revoked.

SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that had determined that a child adopted in Algeria was an 'extended family member' within the meaning of reg8 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI21006-1003, and therefore entitled to be issued with an EEA family member permit to enter the United Kingdom. The court held that she was not a family member within the meaning of art2 of Parliament and and reg7 of the Regulations and, consequently, she did not fall within art3 of the Directive read together with reg8 of the Regulations.

Tarakhil v Home Office

Immigration Deportation. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant an unaccompanied Afghan minor who had arrived in the United Kingdom in 2008, he claimant had never been under any obligation to leave the UK and was not capable of being lawfully removed. He was an important witness in a murder trial as subject to an agreement by the police not to be detained or removed. On that basis the claimant's detention in an Immigration Centre was wrongful and he was entitled to damages in the overall award of 19,250.