Category Archives: Asylum
A Government’s onslaught on refugees: Safe return reviews, cessation, exclusion, and revocation
Prior to 9 March 2017, the general view certainly was that, Home Office practice (subject to some exceptions), was to routinely grant settlement to refugees who had completed the 5year probationary period. On 9 March 2017, the Home Office however published updated Guidance, Refugee Leave dated 2 March 2017, firmly indicating that, “All those who apply for settlement protection after completing the appropriate probationary period of limited leave will be subject to a safe return review with reference to the country situation at the date the application is considered”.
Not only that but that refugees can be subject to the review procedure at any juncture whilst holding refugee status, “ A person’s case may also be reviewed at any point in the process either when triggered by their actions, for example, they are convicted of a serious crime, or in light of a significant and non-temporary change in conditions in their country of origin such that they no longer need protection”.
Continue reading
Overstayer Or Failed Asylum Seeker in the UK? Why You Shouldn’t Pack Your Bags Just Yet
Failed asylum seekers and those without leave to remain in the UK, may feel that they have no option but to leave the UK, where there seems no way of regularising their stay.
“Home Is Best”, they say, however, prior to taking such steps, it is worth while pausing to review circumstances, as adult claimants or children without leave in the UK have several options open to them having regard to several provisions of UK law, which they can appropriately avail themselves in order to seek to regularise their stay in the UK.
Continue reading
After Hesham Ali: Unrepresented Claimant With UK Resident Children Successfully Resists Deportation In Court Of Appeal
Following a long line of recent negative decisions in the Court of Appeal in cases such as The Secretary of State for the Home Department v AJ (Zimbabwe) [2016] EWCA Civ 1012, the newly notified case of Quarey, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 47 is a much welcome decision in relation to potential deportees with children resident in the UK.
Paposhvili ECHR: An Easing of The UK Courts Restrictive Approach To Article 3 Medical Condition Cases?
THE PROBLEM AND THE COURT’S APPROACH IN PAPOSHVILI v BELGIUM : ECHR 13 Dec 2016
The Court itself in Paposhvili noted that it had applied the case-law established in N. v. the United Kingdom in declaring inadmissible, as being manifestly ill-founded, numerous applications raising similar issues, concerning claimants who were HIV positive or who suffered from other serious physical illnesses or mental illnesses. It was noted that several judgments had applied this case-law to the removal of seriously ill persons whose condition was under control as the result of medication administered in the Contracting State concerned, and who were fit to travel.
The Court considered from a review of the case-law that the application of Article 3 of the Convention only in cases where the person facing expulsion is close to death, which has been its practice since the judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom, has deprived aliens who are seriously ill, but whose condition is less critical, of the benefit of that provision. As a corollary to this, the case-law subsequent to N. v. the United Kingdom has not provided more detailed guidance regarding the “very exceptional cases” referred to in N. v. the United Kingdom, other than the case contemplated in D. v. the United Kingdom.
The Court observed that there were important issues at stake in Paposhvili notably concerning the expulsion of aliens who are seriously ill. Thus, the impact of the case went beyond the particular situation of the applicant.
In Paposhvili, it was argued among other issues, that the present case afforded a unique opportunity to depart from the excessively restrictive approach adopted by the Court in N. v. the United Kingdom with regard to the expulsion of persons suffering from serious illness.
New Zimbabwe Home Office Policy Note 2017: Protestors, Demonstrators and Social Media Resistance Focused
It had been obvious for at least two years, that the Country Information Report of October 2014 no longer reflected the up-to-date political situation for the purposes of considering asylum claims from Zimbabweans. My blog post, Zimbabwean Asylum Claimants And The New Political Movement: Are The Home Office & Tribunal “Getting it?” of 24 August 2016, summarized the position in its opening paragraph as follows:
