Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant was a failed asylum seeker whose case fell within the Secretary of State's legacy programme sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to grant him discretionary, rather than indefinite, leave to remain, contending, inter alia, that not applying the older practice of granting indefinite leave to remain in his case was unlawful discrimination or acting conspicuously unfairly against him. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the applicable policy had been that which was in force as at the date of the decision and no illegality had arisen.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant, who had entry clearance as the post-flight spouse of a refugee, applied for public funds and indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence. The application was refused by the defendant Secretary of State and the claimant sought judicial review of the refusal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant failed to meet the requirement that her partner was a British citizen or a person settled in the UK, that the Secretary of State did not have a general discretion to provide public funds to a person in the claimant's position and, therefore, there was no basis on which to quash the Secretary of State's decision.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Indian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision refusing her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had correctly concluded that the claimant had not lost ties to her home country and that she did not have a compelling case under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the Secretary of State's reasons had been adequate.
Education Higher education. The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of a student loan due to the fact she only had discretionary leave to remain. The Administrative Court held that there had been no real engagement by the defendant Secretary of State in a justification of the rationality or proportionality of the blanket exclusion from eligibility for a student loan.
Immigration European Economic Area nationals. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that the appellant Pakistani national did not retain a right of residence in the United Kingdom, as her German ex-husband had not been in the UK exercising Treaty rights at the time of their divorce. The appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question 'Must a third country national ex-spouse of a Union citizen be able to show that their former spouse was exercising Treaty rights in the host Member State at the time of their divorce in order to retain a right of residence under art 13(2) of Directive 2004-38-EC?'.
YS v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel; Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v M and another
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(a), 12(a) and 13(1)(d), (f) and (g) of Directive (EC) 95-46 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), and of arts 8(2) and 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between third country nationals who had applied for a residence permit for a fixed period in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum, concerning the Minister's refusal to communicate to those nationals a copy of an administrative document drafted before the adoption of the decisions on their applications for residence permits.
Immigration Appeal. The issue for determination was whether the condition, under art 7(1)(c) of Directive (EC) 2004-38, that the appellant's wife should have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom had been satisfied, as she had been entitled to use the National Health Service (the NHS). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the conditions in art 7(1) of the Directive were to be interpreted strictly. Accordingly, the fact that the wife would be entitled to treatment under the NHS was nothing to the point and the appellant was not entitled to qualify for permanent residency in the UK.
Immigration European Economic Area nationals. The appellant had arrived in the United Kingdom from Nigeria to join her sister, who was a European citizen. Her application for a residence card was refused on the grounds that she had not established that she had been a member of her sister's household in Nigeria nor had she been a prior dependent of hers. Her appeals to the tribunals were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed her appeal as there had been no errors of law on the part of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in circumstances where a certificate produced from the local government in Nigeria that evidenced household membership had not given rise to a rebuttable presumption that the respondent Secretary of State had failed to discharge.
Immigration Leave to enter. The appeal concerned the amended Immigration Rules that required a UK spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the United Kingdom to join them. The Administrative Court had held that there was substantial merit in the contention that the amendments amounted to a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not grant declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his analysis and had reached the wrong conclusion on compatibility.
Immigration Leave to remain. The appellants were a family from the Philippines whose application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom had been rejected. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) found that, although it was in the children's best interests to continue their education in the UK, removal would be proportionate to the legitimate aim of immigration control. The Upper Tribunal upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the family's appeal, issued guidance on how tribunals were to approach the proportionality exercise where it had concluded that continuing education in the UK would be in the best interests of the children.