The Supreme Court has just recently notified the very interesting case of Mirga (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent);  UKSC 1 Samin (Appellant) v Westminster City Council (Respondent)  UKSC .
Monthly Archives: January 2016
What Exactly Is The Point of Introducing An Intermediary Level A2 English Test Affecting Leave Applications?
At some point from October 2016, in light of announcements made last week by the Government, non-EEA national partners and parents on the family route will be required to pass a speaking and listening test at level A2 in order to qualify, after two and half years in the UK, for further leave to remain on the 5year partner or parent route to settlement.
EEA Deportations: Enhanced Levels of Protection And Periods of Activity, Residence and Imprisonment
The Court of Appeal’s recent decisions in Warsame v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 16 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Vassallo  EWCA Civ 13 considered the circumstances in which reliance can be placed upon enhanced levels of protection provided within the Citizen’s Directive in relation to expulsion of EEA nationals subject to deportation proceedings.
The central question in Vassallo was whether the Tribunal was correct in law to find that Mr Vassallo had acquired a right of permanent residence. The Court of Appeal having full regard to the Citizen’s Directive, relevant CJEU caselaw and the 2006 EEA Regulations, decided that having regard to the character of the EEA national’s residence in the UK, after a historical accrual of the requisite 5years, and despite Mr Vassalo having resided in the UK for over 50years, no right of permanent residence could be relied upon.
Upper Tribunal Considers that Scope of Article 8 Is Elastic Enough Thereby Enabling a By- Passing of the Adult Dependent Relative Rules by Reference to Exceptional Circumstances
Where there had been lingering doubts as to whether an “adult dependant relative appeal” can ultimately succeed on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR before the Tribunal, the newly reported decision of Dasgupta (error of law – proportionality – correct approach)  UKUT 28 (IAC), answers this question in the positive.
Are the Rights Afforded to Victims of Trafficking(and Modern Slavery) Illusory In Comparison To Those Applicable to Refugee Protection?
Recent changes in the law mean that in England and Wales, Competent Authority decision makers must decide whether, if someone is not a victim of trafficking ,they are nonetheless a victim of another form of modern slavery. Therefore in addition to victims of trafficking, Modern Slavery includes victims of slavery, victims of servitude and victims of forced or compulsory labour.
Humanitarian Protection: An Alternative to Refugee Protection
Although strictly speaking, the definition of ’protection claim’ refers to a claim that removal of the claimant from the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom’s obligation under the Refugee Convention or in relation to persons eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection, there are also other forms of protection a claimant may seek to place reliance upon such as:
- Article 3 protection( e.g based upon medical grounds, general country conditions or prison conditions );
- Protection provided to those who are stateless;
- Protection provided to those who been subject to trafficking
The consideration of claims for humanitarian protection is however quite different from other forms of protection having regard to the interpretation of the relevant originating provisions including the criteria that an applicant must fall into.