Family Visitor Appeals
Today, the Crime and Courts Bill has been published. It contains a clause to remove the full right of appeal for refusal of a family visit visa. Refused applicants will still be able to appeal on limited grounds (human rights or race discrimination). Subject to Parliamentary approval and Royal Assent, this change is expected to come into force by 2014.
Nationality
This judgment concerns the Secretary of State’s power to deprive a person of British citizenship under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, and in particular the limitation upon that power provided by section 40(4) precluding the exercise of the power if this would make a person stateless.
Detention
In March and in May 2011 the Supreme Court in Walumba Lumba and Kadian Mighty –v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] and in Shepherd Masimba Kambadzi –v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] the Court endorsed and explained the principles covering the use of powers to detain someone for immigration purposes under Immigration law .
McCarthy versus Zambrano
In the ground breaking case of Zambrano, two Columbian nationals were allowed to live and work in Belgium in order to facilitate their Belgian national children living in Belgium. The case was a clear endorsement of the importance of EU citizenship. It accepted that the parents ought to be allowed to remain to prevent an interference with their children’s EU rights. This was even though the relevant children had never left Belgium and thus, had not exercised treaty rights, the traditional route to allow EU nationals, and particularly their third country national family members, to rely on such rights.
Immigration Law – Things you want to know
1. Settlement and Continuous Presence
Immigration law allows certain immigrants to apply for settlement after they have spent a specified period of time in the UK. For some, for example migrant workers, it is five years, for some it is 10 years continuous lawful residence and for others it is 14 years lawful and or unlawful residence.
RN (Zimbabwe)
The decision in RN (Zimbabwe) is the latest test case decision of the AIT on Zimbabwe. It is a country guidance decision. This means that, unless there is new evidence which shows that the AIT’s assessment of the situation in Zimbabwe must be reconsidered, the AIT and the Home Office must apply this decision when deciding any asylum claims or appeals of Zimbabweans.
The withdrawal of the Seven Year Child Concession
On 9th December 2008, the Government announced the withdrawal of the seven year child concession (DP5/96) from that date. Before that date DP5/96 had for several years allowed some families with dependent children (i.e. children under 18 years who are not leading an independent life) to be granted indefinite leave to remain if the child or children had been living in the UK for at least 7 years.
Huang & Anor v SSHD [2007] UKHL 11
This judgment established that, when considering an appeal on Article 8 grounds, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) must consider for itself whether it is proportionate to require the individual to leave the UK or refuse him or her entry to the UK. In deciding that question, the AIT must not reduce the question to merely whether the case is exceptional as compared to other cases or the Immigration Rules.
Beoku-Betts v SSHD [2008] UKHL 39
In this case the House of Lords answered the question as to whether the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) should consider the family life of all the relevant family members, when considering an appeal that raised Article 8, or whether the AIT should only consider the family life of the individual who had brought the appeal. The House of Lords decided that the family life of all the relevant family members should be considered.
Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40
In this case the House of Lords considered whether someone with family settled in the UK should usually be expected to return to his or her home country to make an entry clearance application rather than being allowed to remain in the UK on the basis of Article 8. The House of Lords decided that, if Article 8 would otherwise entitled someone to remain in the UK, he or she should not ordinarily be required to go home in order to make an application to return to the UK – especially if there are children involved.
EB (Kosovo) v SSHD [2008] UKHL 41
In this case the House of Lords considered the circumstances in which delay on the part of the Home Office in deciding the case of someone in the UK may be relevant when considering Article 8. In this case the delay had been in deciding the individual’s asylum claim; and he had formed a relationship in the UK while waiting for the case to be decided. The House of Lords decided that delay could be relevant in three ways. Firstly, the longer someone was in the UK, the more likely it was that he or she would develop important social connections in the UK and, therefore, have a significant private or family life here. Secondly, while any close…
Metock & Ors v Ireland (Case C-127/08)
On 25 July 2008, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave judgment in the case of Metock & Ors v Ireland (Case C-127/08). This case concerns the right of a British citizen, working in Ireland, not to be separated from her husband (a national of Cameroon, and refused asylum seeker) whom she married in Ireland. (The case also concerns the rights of four other families in Ireland where one of the family members is an EEA national exercising Treaty rights in Ireland who wishes to be joined by, or not be separated from, his or her non-EEA national partner).