Immigration Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant Indian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant him and his dependents discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a period of 30 months, rather than indefinite leave to remain. She had acted consistently with her duty, under of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, and had properly applied the Immigration Rules provisions introduced by HC 194.
Immigration Deportation. The Administrative Court, in partially allowing the claimant's judicial review proceedings, found that, for four months, he had been subject to a curfew and tagging when he should not have been. Accordingly, the elements of false imprisonment had been made out during that period.
European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that of Directive (EC) 2004-38 and of Regulation (EC) No 883-2004, as amended, should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which nationals of other member states who were in a situation such as that referred to in art 14(4)(b) of that directive were excluded from entitlement to certain 'special non-contributory cash benefits' within the meaning of of Regulation 883-2004, which also constituted 'social assistance' within the meaning of of Directive 2004-38, although those benefits were granted to nationals of the member state concerned who were in the same situation.
Immigration Leave to remain. The substantive application for judicial review featured some of the most frequently encountered misconceptions in cases which had combined elements of public law and human rights challenges. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) gave guidance on those issues, and held that the public interests in play comfortably outweighed the competing personal interest of the claimant and his partner, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's finding that she did not have leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Although the original decision had been unlawful, on the proper consideration of the evidence, the claim had to fail.
Immigration Removal. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove him and appealed against her refusal of his application for a European Economic Area residence card. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that the claimant could be removed pending his appeal.
Immigration Offence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for conspiracy to facilitate breaches of United Kingdom immigration law, contrary to s1(1) of the in circumstances where, whatever the circumstances of his own marriage, there had been insufficient evidence to establish his involvement in a wider conspiracy to organise sham marriages and the judge had erred in refusing to accept a submission of no case to answer.
Immigration Leave to remain. The appellant brothers had been refused indefinite leave to remain, and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed their appeal, finding that there was no family life between them and their mother, although she also had indefinite leave to remain, as she appeared to spend most of her time in India. Further, as adults, they had not demonstrated a relationship of dependence over and above the usual emotional ties. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal. The tribunal's findings on the issue of proportionality had not been flawed and no reasonable tribunal, on the facts as found, could properly have come to a different conclusion.
Immigration Leave to remain. The first claimant Ukrainian national was granted leave to enter the United Kingdom via the highly skilled migrant programme (HSMP). The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, as the application fell to be dealt with under the Immigration Rules as when he had entered the HSMP scheme, the Secretary of State had considered the application under the wrong Immigration Rules and she could not refuse the claimant indefinite leave to remain for having failed to satisfy a 'continuous residence' requirement.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to decide their applications for settlement and indefinite leave to remain for nine years. They subsequently challenged her decisions on their applications. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State's delay had given rise to substantial breaches of her obligation to respect each claimant's private and family life for which they were entitled to substantial damages. Further, she had erred in considering the second and third claimants' spent convictions in determining their applications. The first claimant having died before judgment, permission was granted for an order to carry on his claims.