Category Archives: Deportation

What you need to know about the varying levels of mandatory re-entry bans

Posted on by Standard Reply

People seeking to come to the UK may be refused entry because they are the subject of a one year, 2 year, 5 year or 10 year re-entry ban.

 

People may be the subject of a re-entry ban where they have previously breached the UK’s immigration laws by:

 

  • overstaying

  • breaching a condition attached to their leave

  • being an illegal entrant,

  • using deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain (whether successful or not)

Continue reading

After Kiarie and Byndloss: Applicant has a second bite of the cherry in a Section 94(B) certification case

Posted on by Standard Reply

QR (Pakistan), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413 (21 June 2018) addresses several important strands arising out of a challenge in the Court of Appeal to a Section 94(B) Certificate.

 

 

Interestingly, in QR(Pakistan), the Court of Appeal granted permission for judicial review in a case where the Applicant had prior to his deportation in February 2017, unsuccessfully mounted a challenge in relation to a previously issued Section 94(B) certificate. After his deportation and following the publication Kiarie and Byndloss in June 2017 in the Supreme Court, well out of time, the Applicant sought to resurrect his previous claim by lodgement of further judicial proceedings in September 2017 whilst abroad.

 

Continue reading

EEA nationals and deportation: Inapplicability of Kiarie and Byndloss effect to take sting out of Regulation 33 Certification

Posted on by Standard Reply

Quietly but determinedly the UK Government continues to detain EEA nationals subject to deportation. Some are deported, not on the basis of any crime committed in the UK but by reliance upon a previous adverse criminal history in the country of origin. Removal directions follow shortly after detention, even if the EEA national has a pending appeal yet to be heard in the immigration Tribunal.

 

 

In Wandzel, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 1371 (Admin), the Claimant, a Polish EEA national subject to deportation, sought to argue that following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kiarie and Byndloss, the Regulation 33 certification applied to his case was unlawful.

 

On the facts of his case, the argument failed to properly lift off the ground with the Administrative Court seemingly making short shrift of them, holding that certification was not unlawful. 

 

  Continue reading

Harsh lesson: Court of Appeal punishes the Home Office for not accepting defeat in a deportation appeal

Posted on by Standard Reply

The Court of Appeal came down hard on the Secretary of State last week. And rightly so.

 

It is high time that the Secretary of State learns the harsh way that it is not every allowed appeal against deportation that must be pursued  to the death in the higher courts.

 

Not only did the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Barry [2018] EWCA Civ 790 (17 April 2018) maintain the decision of the First Tier Tribunal allowing an appeal against deportation but awarded costs on an indemnity basis to the intended deportee. This was on account of the conduct of the Secretary of State which was found by the Court of Appeal to be “indeed unreasonable to a high degree”.

 

Continue reading

Risk of re-offending and denial of guilt: Court of Appeal dissects OASys Report, concludes EEA family member with permanent residence can be deported

Posted on by Standard Reply

The outcome in Kamki v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1715 (31 October 2017) emphasises among other  issues, that  it may prove fatal to an appeal  if a  deportee does  not accept responsibility  in relation  to the offences in which he is found guilty and consequently undertakes no  relevant offender courses in prison or other work to address his offending behaviour. Such issues, in  an EEA deportation appeal go to the root of  the matter   as regards  whether the  Secretary  of State or Tribunal  may find  on that basis that the personal conduct of the person concerned represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.

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