Category Archives: Appeals

Heartless Judgements: Upper Tribunal rejects flexible Paposhvili approach to Article 3 medical condition cases as “over-elastic and ill-defined”

Posted on by Standard Reply

After the ECHR published their judgment in PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM – 41738/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Grand Chamber)) [2016] ECHR 1113, that most immigration practitioners were seen to  tout this  case   as a  glimmer  of  hope and flexibility in the  approach to Article 3 medical condition cases  is not in doubt.  Paposhvili was variously described as “shedding light”,  “new hope”,  “ a paradigm shift”  and “ a new approach”   to the consideration of human rights  medical condition cases.

 

Continue reading

Now that Mugabe has fallen what now for UK based Zimbabwean asylum claimants?

Posted on by Standard 9

On  21 November 2017, Robert Gabriel Mugabe resigned as the President of Zimbabwe, after maintaining a grip on power  for 37 years.

 

Following that resignation , the  burning  questions relating to  the future  political democratic  processes and upholding of the rule of law in Zimbabwe  are matters evidently up for debate,  perhaps  to become  clearer as time unfolds.

 

For now the biting question for UK based asylum claimants is this: how  does Mugabe’s  downfall impact upon  UK based Zimbabwean asylum claimants and failed asylum seekers?

 

Continue reading

Righting a wrong wrought by the Upper Tribunal:Court of Appeal decides Sala was wrongly decided

Posted on by Standard Reply

The next time that the Upper Tribunal fixates on disturbing  settled EEA  law,  perhaps they  should consider  taking a  very long pause  so as to avoid  reaching decisions which potentially  result in  injustice. 

Continue reading

Home Office adamant cogent evidence renders AA(Iraq) largely redundant on security situation

Posted on by Standard Reply

It is clear from initial decision- making through  to  judicial review challenge cases  that the  Home Office have been  angling for many months to have  AA (Article 15(c)) (Rev 2) [2015] UKUT 544 (IAC)  overturned.  This is because having regard to AA(Iraq)2015,  as initially promulgated  and even as recently amended by  AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 944, it is still possible  for  Iraqi claimants  relying on claims for Humanitarian  Protection  before the Tribunal  to succeed.  What may be delaying a head -on challenge might be the lack  identification of  an appropriate  case.

 

Continue reading

EEA deport first, appeal later Guidance: Regulation 33 not undermined by Supreme Court decision in Kiarie & Byndloss

Posted on by Standard Reply

The Home Offices’ current position is that the  recent Supreme Court judgment in Kiarie and Byndloss, R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 does not undermine the application of regulation 33 of the 2016 EEA Regulations.

 

The Home Office Policy Guidance Regulations 33 and 41 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 was amended on 3 August 2017 in the following regards:

 

  • Changes to reflect the Supreme Court judgment in Kiaire and Byndloss

  • Changes to reflect the Court of Appeal judgment in OO (Nigeria)

Continue reading

Sadovska in the Supreme Court and how the Home Office approach marriages of convenience/sham marriages in practise

Posted on by Standard Reply

“Marriages of convenience are, for immigration purposes, synonymous with sham marriages”, so states Home office policy guidance (Marriage Investigations).

 

Continue reading