Immigration Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that on an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) (the FTT) pursuant to reg 26 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a derivative residence card, where no removal directions have been issued and no notice has been given under of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the FTT had no jurisdiction to entertain a case based on the Immigration Rules or on art of the European Convention on Human Rights, outside of the rules.
European Union Immigration. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) allowed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, holding that she was not entitled to state pension credit because she did not have a relevant right of residence in the United Kingdom. As the appellant's son had had a right of permanent residence, the appellant had had a right of residence as a dependent family member.
Immigration Residence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the decision of Kareem UKUT 00024 (IAC) where the Upper Tribunal had created a new private international rule for the purposes of EU law, referring to the law of the member state of the EU national's nationality in order to decided validity of marriage was unnecessary and would not be relied on.
European Union Immigration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant Pakistani national's appeal against the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissal of his appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's refusal to issue him with an European Economic Area residence card as the former spouse of a European Union national. Regulation 10(6) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, , correctly implemented and he had not been prevented from working by Home Office delay.
Immigration Leave to enter. The Supreme Court ruled on the claimants' appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, concerning the amendment to the Immigration Rules 1994 (HC 395) that required a United Kingdom spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement (MIR) before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the UK to join them. The Supreme Court held, among other things, that: (i) the central challenge to the validity of those rules as under the failed; and (ii) the Rules had failed unlawfully to give effect to the duty of the Secretary of State in respect of the welfare of children under s55 of the .
Immigration Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed an appeal by the Secretary of State from a decision of the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal finding that the deportation decision of the respondent, Q, had been disproportionate. It found that Q's deportation would seriously jeopardise the welfare of the three children in his care, and, in particular one who had special needs. Despite the seriousness of Q's criminal behaviour and his adverse immigration record, there existed 'exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of the Immigration Rules.
Immigration Deportation. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Irish national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to deport him as a foreign offender. There was no conflict with the objective of the for the Secretary of State not to deport European Economic Area nationals and she had given adequate reasons for her decision.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Pakistani national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, revoking his indefinite leave to remain and refusing his application for naturalisation, on the ground that he had fraudulently obtained his test of English for international communication certificate. His application for naturalisation had been properly refused and his implicit assertion that he had satisfied all of the necessary criteria had been false.
Sentence Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed, to a limited extent, the defendant's appeal against a confiscation order. In all the circumstances, the confiscation order made in the sum of 927,356.35 was reduced to 767,233.59 accordingly.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing indefinite leave to remain on the basis that she had been absent from the United Kingdom for over 180 days. On a proper construction of para 245AAA(a)(i) of the Immigration Rules, an absence from the UK for a period of more than 180 days in one of the relevant 12 month periods entailed a failure to satisfy the requirements of para 245CD of the Immigration Rules.