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.
Immigration Appeal. The appellant Nigerian citizen's appeal against deportation was allowed by the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT). The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed the Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held, inter alia, that, in the circumstances, the FTT presiding judge had erred in exercising his casting vote. Further, the FTT had not identified, as it should have done, the features of PF's case that had amounted to compelling reasons or the exceptional circumstances justifying the success of his appeal, and its consideration of and emphasis on PF's rehabilitation had been mistaken.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Thai national's application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom was refused on the basis of an unspent criminal conviction. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, inter alia, the Secretary of State had been entitled to take the new Immigration Rules into account, notwithstanding that the application had been made prior their entry into force. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted perversely or irrationally.
European Union Freedom of movement. The Secretary of State had decided to expel three European Union citizens from the United Kingdom on the ground that their conduct had represented a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed their appeals on the basis that there would be a better prospect of them being rehabilitated if they remained in the UK. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeals in the circumstances of each case, but held that, in considering whether an individual was to be expelled, the prospect of rehabilitation was relevant, even if the individual did not have a permanent right of residence.
Immigration European Economic Area nationals. A Pakistan national had married a German national and moved to the United Kingdom where they had two children who were German nationals. They divorced and the wife sought to regularise her position in the UK. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decided that she had a right of residence, both under art20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applying the principles in Zambrano, and under art12 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1612-68 (on freedom of movement for workers within the Community). It also allowed her appeal under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Secretary of state appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union as the answers to the issues raised were not acte clair.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Nigerian national challenged the decision of the defendant Secretary of State to refuse him leave to enter the United Kingdom as a returning resident and to remove him to Nigeria. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in circumstances where the letter purporting to grant the claimant indefinite leave to remain (ILR) had been procured irregularly by a dishonest Home Office employee, there was no record of a genuine decision to grant ILR to the claimant. Accordingly, his ILR had not been cancelled, giving him an in-country right of appeal, and it had been reasonable and lawful to immediately return him.
*Singh (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Khalid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Immigration Rules. In dismissing appeals against refusal of leave to remain in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the changes made to the Immigration Rules by HC194 had not been applicable to applications for leave to remain made or pending at the time that the changes had been implemented, but had applied to such applications after the implementation of the subsequent statement of changes HC565. The court considered the conflicting decisions in Edgehill v Secretary of State for the Home Department All ER (D) 14 (Apr) and Haleemudeen v Secretary of State for the Home Department All ER (D) 50 (May) and preferred the former.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing him indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, whether a requirement amounted to a request for evidence or to the imposition of a criterion was context-sensitive. In the context of the present case, a request for formal documentation of the claimant's asserted work history fell clearly on the 'evidence' side of the line and he could not complain that the Secretary of State had not been satisfied that he had fulfilled the relevant criteria.
Immigration Deportation. The respondent, MA, originated from Somalia and came to the United Kingdom, where he was granted indefinite leave to remain. MA was convicted of rape and attempted rape, for which he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, and a decision to deport him to Somaliland was served. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed MA's appeal against the deportation decision and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appellant Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held, inter alia, that the FTT's error in having considered the case outside the Immigration Rules had been amaterialerror of law and the matter would be remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Immigration Assisting illegal entry into United Kingdom. The defendant was convicted of immigration offences committed whilst he was a sole practitioner and principal of a firm of solicitors. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed his appeal against conviction and held that the defendant's acts had been capable of facilitating a breach of immigration law by his clients for the purposes of s25 of the namely entering into a sham marriage.