Monthly Archives: August 2016
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.
You 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” ?
There 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  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.
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  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.