Court of Appeal
R oao Parvin Begum -V- SSHD PB (Bangladesh) - C4/2014/3023
- My client had been granted leave to remain recourse to public funds under the post 2012 change in immigration rules. We challenged the decision on account of her poor health and disability and the case was settled at the Judicial Review stage. The matter progressed to the Court of Appeal stage to litigate the issue of costs. The matter was settled with a favourable outcome before the date of hearing.
HS and Others  EWHC 3126 (Admin) Case No: CO/6311/2011
- This was a CART Judicial Review claimant matter. This case where the decision provides clarification of how the second appeals test should be applied: On a substantive judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal, Charles J considered that once permission has been granted in such a ‘Cart judicial review’ the second appeals test falls away and standard judicial review principles apply. Accordingly: (a) at the permission stage, the Court is to decide whether the second-tier appeals criteria are satisfied and not whether it is arguable that they will be satisfied at the substantive hearing; and so (b) if permission is granted on that basis (as with a second-tier appeal) the permission test is spent and is no longer the test to be applied at the substantive hearing. The timing of this decision coincided with when the 59th amendment of the Civil Procedure Rules came into force on 1 October 2012. LJ Charles decision remains of historical interest as it echoes the provisions within Cart Rule 54.7 which provides:
"That the court will give permission to proceed only if it considers –
- That there is an arguable case, which has a reasonable prospect of success, that both the decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal and the decision of the First Tier Tribunal against which permission to appeal was sought are wrong in law
- That the claim raises an important point of principle or practice
- Or there is some compelling reason to hear it."
AB & Others (internet activity – state of evidence) Iran  UKUT 257 (IAC)
- My client was AB whose was a blogger and rap musician. This case established that social media users who have been critical of the Iranian regime may be at risk upon return to Iran, in the event of likely interrogation at the airport. The Upper Tribunal found that the use of the internet in an opportunistic way does not mean that an individual would not be at risk upon return. An individual’s social media activity is a factor that must be considered when assessing potential risks upon return.
HAA (s.72: overseas conviction) Somalia  UKUT 366 (IAC) (10 October 2012)
- This was an Upper Tribunal matter. The case was reported on the basis that in cases where s 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is invoked, it is important to see that the specific requirements of that section have been complied with. In particular, if the conviction was outside the United Kingdom, there must be either proof of the offence and sentence (s 72(3)), or certification under s 72(4). It does not appear that the statute requires certification to be in the letter of refusal.
Rajbhandari (PBS: funds - available) Nepal  UKUT 364 (IAC) (08 October 2012)
- This was an appeal before the Upper Tribunal relating to a challenge against a refusal decision in respect of a Tier 1 (Post-study Work) Migrant. The case involved a consideration of the availability of funds in PBS cases. In this matter it was held that the notion that funds only need to be “available” to an applicant is, on the true construction of Appendix C of the Immigration Rules, applicable only to student applications.