Procedure to Request Expedition of EEA applications and the EEA Reconsideration Procedure

EEA flagOn 30 August 2016, the Home office published their amended policy guidance; Processes and procedures for EEA documentation applications, Version 4.0, 30 August 2016: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/549168/Processes_and_procedures_for_EEA_documentation_applications_v4.0.pdf

The guidance now contains an addition  as regards  the section on  ‘Requests to expedite EEA applications’. Within the same guidance, is also an existing procedure to request that  the Home Office  reconsider a refused EEA  decision.

Continue reading

Guidance on the Interaction Between the Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016 (Kindle edition)

My first kindle friendly guide on the interaction between the Immigration Act 2014 and the Immigration Act 2016 is now available on Amazon UK.  The guide provides useful navigation and unravels the complexities within the immigration Act 2014 and 2016  for immigration practitioners or those simply with an interest in keeping up-to date with UK legislative changes in immigration law.

 

Kindle bookYou can have a little preview by clicking the link below:


“A Guide To Understanding The Interaction Between The Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016”
 

 

The guide can be bought on Amazon for only £3.81.  Further guides will be available and notified on my blog and can be bought through Amazon UK.

Zimbabwean Asylum Claimants And The New Political Movement: Are The Home Office & Tribunal “Getting it” ?

Social mediaThere clearly is a new protest political  movement emerging   in Zimbabwe  being  propelled substantially  by  social media. Where this
continues  in the long term ( if not  suppressed ),  and where  claimants associated with such movements seek protection in the UK,  then   current rigid   UK  asylum country  guidance caselaw, CM (EM country guidance; disclosure) Zimbabwe CG [2013] UKUT 59 (IAC),   becomes increasingly  redundant.

 

The current question  is whether the  Home Office together with the Tribunal understand the true nature and extent of the new  movement and how it impacts  upon  claimant’s  cases upon application or appeal.  Simply put, are they “getting it ”?   If not and where the guidance in CM obscures  consideration of claims from persons associated with such movements, then there is an inevitable adverse  impact  upon considerations of  risk on return   and  entitlement to protection for affected claimants.

 

Continue reading

Foreign Criminal: Court of Appeal Finds Very Significant Obstacles To Integration in Country of Return

The newly notified case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813, shows  that sometimes the Secretary of State does not always get  what she wants: ie  churning out of permission applications in deportation appeal  cases with the sole purpose of  convincing  the Upper Tribunal or Court of Appeal  to overturn an allowed deportation appeal.

 

The Court of Appeal in Kamara made it clear that contrary to the Secretary of State’s  submissions, the case in truth  did not raise important points of principle, however   in a short and to the point judgement has made  important  clarifications  in relation to  the phrase, there would be very significant obstacles to his integration into the country to which it is proposed he is deported”, which appears in Paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules and Section 117C(4) of the  2002 Act.

 

Continue reading

Public Interest Considerations :Court of Appeal Gives Guidance On Concept Of “Precariousness”

RoyalCourtsofJusticeimageIn  Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 803, the Court  of Appeal  sought to deal with several  matters at once as regards  issues of interpretation of  Sections 117A to 117D in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as inserted by the Immigration Act 2014).  What was in issue  therefore was the public interest question – ie  the question whether an interference with a person’s right to respect for private and family life is justified under Article 8(2) of the ECHR.

Continue reading