Monthly Archives: May 2018

Is the door wide open for UK born “Zimbabwean” children aged at least 5years to obtain registration as British citizens relying on MK?

Posted on by Standard Reply

There is a considerable number of undocumented Zimbabwean nationals who were born in Zimbabwe, and following arrival in the UK, now have children of their own born here, aged under 18years.   Some of these children may not yet have accrued the necessary continuous residence in the UK required to enable them to place reliance upon the 7year Rule as a basis of application for leave to remain.   In such circumstances, fulfilment of the 10years continuous residence in the UK required to enable an application for registration as a British citizen would accordingly be inapplicable.

 

Continue reading

GUEST BLOG by Counsel, Becket Bedford: Ahmed, JK v Sweden and the burden and standard of proof

Posted on by Standard Reply

In the Court of Appeal, verification by the State of documentary or other evidence is sometimes, but rarely, required to assist an applicant to establish his claim: see MA (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 175 at §29; PJ (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2015] 1 WLR 1322 at §29, explaining and confirming the Tribunal decisions in Ahmed v SSHD [2002] Imm AR 318; MJ v SSHD [2013] Imm AR 799; and NA v SSHD [2014] UKUT 205.

 

Continue reading

Partners of British citizens with unlawful or precarious immigration status: Appreciating the stringent evaluative mechanism after Agyarko and TZ (Pakistan)

Posted on by Standard Reply

“In Agyarko the Supreme Court made clear that the scheme established by the Rules and the Secretary of State’s Instructions are lawful and compatible with article 8. Accordingly, the Secretary of State is entitled to apply a test of insurmountable obstacles to the relocation of the family within the Rules and a test of exceptional circumstances as described outside the Rules………Despite the clarity of the conclusions in Agyarko, the appellants seek to persuade the court that there remain important issues relating to how the principles in Agyarko should be applied. Before embarking on a short analysis of those issues, I say at the outset that I am wholly unconvinced that any gloss is needed on the principles described by Lord Reed. I shall at the conclusion of this judgment set out an evaluative mechanism that should be adopted by First-tier tribunals that is consistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court, follows existing good practice across jurisdictions and meets the failure to adequately describe the evaluative judgment undertaken in the reasoning in these cases, despite the fact that the ultimate decisions were and are correct”, said the Court of Appeal in TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 (17 May 2018)

Continue reading

Tribunal’s jurisdiction: Appreciating when and how to tactfully raise a New Matter in an appeal

Posted on by Standard Reply

Nothing deflates an Appellant more than leaving an appeal venue without their substantive appeal having been heard by a Tribunal Judge.  Such a situation can arise where a Tribunal Judge cannot consider a raised  new matter not previously considered by the Home Office unless the Secretary of State has given consent for the Tribunal to do so.

 

Continue reading

New Zimbabwe Home Office Policy Note April 2018 – After Mugabe, no fundamental change to the political environment or treatment of opposition

Posted on by Standard Reply

“While the tone of political rhetoric has been more conciliatory since Mr Mnangagwa came to power, there is a lack of clear and cogent evidence that the government has fundamentally changed the political environment or how it treats those opposed to the state”, so concludes the Country policy and information note Zimbabwe: opposition to the government, April 2018 published on 30 April 2018 by the Home Office.

 

Continue reading