- Telephone
020 7923 4020
- Fax
020 7923 3320
- Crime Helpline
07920 077 057
- Domestic Violence
Emergency Helpline
07920 077 054
-
The case raised the issue of how the courts should respond to repeat claims for asylum or human rights protection where an individual makes further submissions or allegations while in the UK or having left and on return to the UK. The appellant, an Iraqi citizen had made repeated claims beginning in November 2000 on the basis that he feared ill treatment in Iraq due to his involvement in illegal trade. The court dismissed his appeal for asylum and found his story to be inconsistent particularly as it had changed in his final submissions and he had no evidence to support his claims.
-
This judicial review application concerned a refugee from Afghanistan who had previously been treated as having claimed asylum in Greece under the provisions of the Dublin Regulation. The appellant claimed that he was unlawfully detained by the UK authorities on his illegal entry into the UK and made a claim damages for his detention. The court decided that the UK authorities were under a duty under the Dublin Regulation to return the appellant to Greece as soon as Greece would accept responsibility. The appellants appeal and claim for damages dismissed as there was sufficient reason for the authorities to believe that the appellant was an abscond risk and his detention was legal.
-
The appellant, an Afghan national initially sought asylum unsuccessfully in the UK in 2002. Since then, the appellant’s mental health problems surfaced and he was diagnosed with depression and required continued medication. The appellant wanted to overturn the decision of the Secretary of State that an immigration judge would dismiss a subsequent appeal for asylum on the basis that the removal of the appellant from the UK would constitute a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. It was decide that this should be treated as a medical case but that the mental illness of a failed asylum seeker could not make that case an “exceptional case” where it would be a breach of Article 3 to return that asylum seeker to his country of origin. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
-
The claimant, a national from the Philippines was seeking to challenge the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer, Manila (ECO) to refuse her entry into the UK as a student. The supporting documentation for the claimant’s application stated that she wanted to study at an institution which was found by the ECO not to be a “bona fide education institution” under paragraph 57(i)(b) of Part 3 of the Immigration Rules. The claimant had however since her initial application registered as a student at a college to complete a course that the court considered would meet the criteria of paragraph 57. It therefore decided that the ECO should re-consider the claimant’s application for the entry into the UK as a student.
Heald & Ors v London Borough of Brent [2009] EWCA Civ 930
AM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 833
Ghassemian v Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2009] EWCA Civ 743
Omondi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 827
S & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 142
-
A Nigerian citizen with a medical qualification from a Nigerian University applied for leave to remain in the UK as a postgraduate doctor. Following her application, the Immigration Rules changed and no longer extended to foreign applicants with medical qualifications earned outside the UK. The Court decided that the new rule applied to all cases in which leave still had to be granted and not only to doctors who had not yet applied under the new rule.
-
The Appellant, an Afghan national, initially sought political asylum in the UK in 2002 which was unsuccessful. He submitted a new application for non-removal in 2005 on grounds of his mental condition. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis that the Appellant would be unable to cope with the destitution which he would likely endure if he returned to Aghanistan.
-
A Somali national arrived in the UK in 2003 when his asylum claim was initially refused. The Appellant subsequently applied for permission to work in the UK which was refused in 2007. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the case was covered by Article 11(2) European Union "Reception Directive". The Court held that the Reception Directive did apply to subsequent applications.
-
The sons of well known Serb collaborators claimed to be at risk of losing their lives if they were returned to Kosovo. It was submitted that the collaboration by the Appellants’ relatives with Serb military authorities would put the appelants’ lives at risk. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court held that it was unable to challenge the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's determination since the Court was satisfied that the Office of Communities, Return and Minority Affairs' position was not confined to the passage in paragraph 120 of the determination about being returned.
-
E was the daughter of Turkish and British parents who were married. The mother applied for permission to appeal against an order made in relation to her daughter under the Hague Convention 1980 and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. The Court of Appeal held that the mother's removal of E to England had been a wrongful abduction from Turkey within the meaning of the Convention and that the Convention required him to order E's return to Turkey.
-
The Appellant, a Nigerian citizen, married a British citizen, her first husband, in 1994 before remarrying in 2008. In 1998, the Appellant’s 5 children joined her in the UK on visitors’ visas. From 2007 until 2008, the Appellant lived with her second husband, her 5 children and her 3 grandchildren in a 3-bedroom flat, let by the Respondent. The Appellant contended that she was entitled to bid for a larger property under the Respondent's housing allocation scheme. The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant’s application for judicial review was rightly refused since the Respondent, despite being entitled to do so, was not compelled to take into account the Appellant’s adult children when deciding what accommodation was suitable under s160A(3) of the Housing Act 1996.
-
Possession proceedings were commenced in 2007 by the Respondent following unresolved complaints against the Appellant. The Court of Appeal held that the Respondent had purported to grant the Appellant a legal estate with the consequence that, in accordance with paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, the agreement was not effective to grant her a legal tenancy, and operated as a declaration by the Respondent that it held the premises in trust for the Appellant. Consequently, service of notice to quit only on the minor beneficiary of the trust was not sufficient to terminate the tenancy.
-
The claimant, an Eritrean national arrived in the UK in 2009 and it emerged that he had been fingerprinted in Italy in 2008. The UK made a formal request for Italy to accept responsibility for the claimant’s asylum application under the Dublin Regulation and the claimant’s UK application for asylum was refused. The claimant challenged the Secretary of States decision on the basis that (a) the UK was in breach of its obligations under Article 3 because he would face inhumane treatment once returned to Italy and (b) the Secretary of State should have exercised his discretion to accept responsibility for dealing with the claimant’s asylum claim due to the Italian authorities treatment of asylum seekers and various other breaches of European Union directives. The court decided that there was insufficient evidence that the claimant would suffer ill treatment under Article 3 and that Italy did not avoid its internal obligations towards asylum seekers. The claim was dismissed.
-
This mother of three children appealed against an order for unsupervised contact by their father to the two youngest children. The mother alleged that she had a fear that the father may abduct the children to Algeria, a country which is not a signatory to any child abduction international treaty. The Court of Appeal decided that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the district judge failed to hold a full fact-finding hearing and failed to cross-examine the father on the mother’s allegation that he intended to abduct the children. These omissions were held to be contrary to the Practice Direction which was designed to tell judges how to go about deciding issues of residence and contact.
