Outer House: Petition; Petition for reduction of Secretary of State decision to refust to treat representations on behalf of the petitioner as a fresh claim for asylum. The petitioner was a citizen of Iraq. His claim for asylum was refused. Leave to appeal that decision was refused by an immigration adjudicator. Leave to appeal to the Inner House was refused. The Inner House then granted warrant for service on the Advocate General. That action was dismissed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the pet ...
|
On 30 July 2004 the applicant, and his sister DK, both Iraqi nationals, had their claims for asylum refused and they were refused leave to enter the United Kingdom. On 6 October 2004 an adjudicator dismissed the applicant's appeal without consideration of the merits when there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. The Tribunal subsequently held that the adjudicator had made a material error of law and the case was sent for reconsideration before a differently constituted Tribunal. ...
|
Application for Leave to Appeal under Section 103B of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002:- On 5 September 2005 the applicant, an Iranian national, applied to the respondent for asylum in the United Kingdom. That application was refused on 3 November 2005. He appealed that decision to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the appeal was heard by an immigration judge who, on 19 January 2006, refused the appeal. The applicant then sought an order requiring the Tribunal to reconsider ...
|
The petitioner and her husband, both Algerian nationals, arrived in the UK in 2005 and had a son, born 23 January 2006 and a daughter born 10 April 2008. The petitioner thereafter claimed asylum and was unsuccessful in her attempts under the statutory procedures. On 5 November 2008 the petitioner's solicitors submitted to the respondent that any attempt to remove the petitioner from the UK would amount to contravention of her rights and the respondent's duties under Article 8 of the European Con ...
|
A decision of an adjudicator that an asylum seeker should be granted refugee status and that her removal would violate the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.3 could not be faulted and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal were wrong to hold that the adjudicator had erred in law in its decision.
|
It was held that the 2 applicants for housing – EEA nationals who were not “qualified persons”, but who were in receipt of income support- were subject to immigration control. This brought them within the exemption in Regulation 3 of the Homelessness (England) Regulations 2000, Class 1. As EEA nationals, they had not required leave to enter the UK, but the Court of Appeal was satisfied that they needed leave to remain under the Immigration Act 1971 because they had no right of abode in the UK. T ...
|
In this case, the Court of Appeal held section 185(4) of the 1996 Housing Act to be incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, “to the extent that it requires a dependent child of a British citizen, if both are habitually resident in the United Kingdom, to be disregarded when determining whether the British citizen has a priority need for accommodation, when the child is subject to immigration control”.
|
Deportation Appropriate Sentence: The Court of Appeal held that a judge had been entitled to find that the continued residence of the accused in England was a detriment to the country, and as such ought to be deported. The accused had been found guilty of using a forged passport, but had contended that the circumstances of his conviction did not justify his deportation since the manner of his arrival in the UK was irrelevant. The Court agree with the sentencing judge in finding that the use of s ...
|
The House of Lords held that where an applicant for asylum was resisting deportation, it was not sufficient for him/her to demonstrate that they would be at risk from suffering serious harm from persons or bodies that were not organs of the state. Rather, the applicant must also demonstrate that the state did not provide reasonable protection from such ill-treatment. The fact that such protection would not “obviate” the threat of serious harm was not relevant. The relevant state authorities must ...
|
The court held that where the IAT was proposing to remove an applicant for asylum on public policy grounds, it was not sufficient for it merely to consider whether the decision taken by the Secretary of State was one which he could reasonably have reached. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether the applicant posed a threat to the public, and so whether it was proportionate to interfere with his article 8 rights by deporting him.
|
| 1 2 |