“Marriages of convenience are, for immigration purposes, synonymous with sham marriages”, so states Home office policy guidance (Marriage Investigations).
Category Archives: Deportation
Revocation of deportation orders: FTT Judge applies the wrong law and incorrectly approaches the issue of delay
In The Secretary of State for the Home Department v SU [2017] EWCA Civ 1069 (20 July 2017), the Court of Appeal clarified from the outset that they had been informed that the appeal before them was the first occasion on which they were concerned with the correct approach to the revocation of a deportation order where it had been implemented but the deportee had, in breach of the deportation order, returned to the UK and established a private and family life following the period of unlawful presence.
Temporary admittance applications by deported EEA nationals to have appeals heard in the UK: Kasicky doubted
Strangely, although the case of R (on the application of Gabor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reg 29AA: interpretation) [2017] UKUT 287, was promulgated on 25 October 2016, it appears to have only been published on 12 July 2017 by the Upper Tribunal. A delay of 8months- even more perplexing as the judgment itself is relatively short.
As to the effect of the decision, for practical purposes, it does not matter whether the temporary admission application considered in Gabor was under the now redundant 2006 EEA Regulations via Regulation 29AA or Regulation 41 of the new 2016 Regulations.
Deport First, Appeal later provisions unlawful: Supreme Court brings to a screeching halt the UK Government’s sustained erosion of appeal rights
The outcome in Kiarie and Byndloss, R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42 (14 June 2017) in the Supreme Court is the epitome of immigration lawyer nirvana. When making deportation orders in Kiarie and Byndloss, the Secretary of State issued Section 94B certificates, the effect of which was that they could bring their appeals only after they had been deported to Kenya and Jamaica. The issue in the two appeals before the Supreme Court was whether the certificates were lawful. Did the certificates breach the rights of the appellants under Article 8 of the ECHR? Unlike the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has most sensibly decided that the Section 94B certification procedure is unlawful and unfair.
Continue reading
How the Secretary of State got the law horribly wrong: Seeking to apply refugee cessation provisions to a Zimbabwean non-refugee deportee
“This is a case in which the legal analysis proposed by the Secretary of State became confused at an early stage and was never reviewed and rectified. It also became procedurally very messy”, so said the Court of Appeal in The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mosira [2017] EWCA Civ 407 (08 June 2017).
By not paying proper regard to fundamentals so as to advance a tactful and relevant legal analysis approach from the very start, stemming from the very decision to cease refugee status, the Secretary of State woefully missed out on an opportunity to deport a Zimbabwean national who had never been granted refugee status but rather was conferred it on a technicality for the purposes of family re-unification.
Continue reading
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.