Monthly Archives: May 2017
The inflexible Adult Dependent Relative Rules are here to stay so says the Court of Appeal
“The question is whether there is now general acceptance that these rules are here to stay as unchallengeable/unamendable….”, so enquired my previous blog article of October 2015 in relation to the Rules relating to Adult Dependent Relatives( ADR’s): Adult Dependant Relatives: Very Deliberately Onerous Rules
An ambitious challenge brought about by BRITCITS in BRITCITS v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 368 (24 May 2017) has elicited a negative response to the question of whether the ADR Rules can be challenged successfully with a view to striking them down as unlawful. Rather, the Court of Appeal emphasized disappointingly, “ True it is that significantly fewer dependants, including parents, will be able to satisfy the new conditions but that was always the intention”.
Zimbabwean failed asylum seekers in the UK: Why some won’t or can’t return home
“So why not return home then if nothing is working for you in the UK?”
Inbuilt obstacles and mechanisms that the Home Office use to defeat, deny and deter immigration claims
On the surface, all that is required to enable preparation and submission of a successful application to the Home Office is self-evident. After all, the application forms themselves are free and readily accessible (postal or on-line, as relevant). These applications forms indicate what documents are required to support an application. Additionally, voluminous Home Office guidance policy is transparently available for leisurely perusal in advance of submitting an application. With all this in sight, in some categories, it seems there isn’t even any need to consult a legal practitioner prior to submission of an application.
There are however in-built laws, policies and procedures in the assessment process of immigration applications, such that a seemingly straightforward application may end up falling foul of these provisions.