The New 2016 EEA Regulations: Fertile Ground for Removal, Expulsion and Deportation of EEA Nationals and their Family Members

On 1 February 2017, the EEA Regulations 2006 were revoked and replaced by the EEA Regulations 2016.

 

The Home Office position is this: “EEA Regulations 2016 in large part consolidate and clarify the provisions, modernise the language used and simplify terms where possible in line with current drafting practice. The EEA Regulations 2016 reflect the margin of appreciation enjoyed by member states to determine their own requirements of public policy and public security, for their own purposes, from time to time. They also make a number of substantive changes, including in respect of public policy and public security decisions”.

b2ap3_large_as

The effect and impact of these sweeping new changes upon EEA nationals and their family members,  is that they are  highly liable to  removal, expulsion or deportation: not only for failure to exercise treaty  rights in the UK,  but also for   engaging  in certain types of behaviour. The reach of the new regulations is such that  even those with impending prosecutions  as well as those who have not  committed any crime  may be  caught by the new changes,  purely on  the basis of  decisions  which can be taken on preventative grounds.

Continue reading

When the Home Office seek to unfairly deny a man his entitlement to British citizenship and an Immigration Judge invokes justice

It might be difficult to imagine a scenario where a person, born in the United Kingdom 53year ago, following a change of name is issued a British passport (with the passport office fully aware of the former name), but only for the home office to subsequently take deportation action against him years later, on the basis that he is not British.

 

But that is exactly what the Home Office sought to do to a man who was born in the UK  in the early   60’s to parents of Nigerian origin,  who were residing in the UK at that time.

 

Continue reading

Is the Upper Tribunal seeking to break free from an overly statutory prescriptive approach in Article 8 Family Children Cases?

The recent decision  of Kaur (children’s best interests / public interest interface) [2017] UKUT 14 (IAC) by Mr Justice McCloskey  makes very interesting reading.

Continue reading

Valid Passport with the Home Office? Zimbabweans with no claims still very much removable from the UK

Cases such as Babbage, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 148 and  JM (Zimbabwe), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1773 are often understood  by  some to mean that any Zimbabwean national detained under UK immigration powers is  irremovable.  This is not correct. The  Home Office have incrementally been detaining Zimbabwean failed asylum seekers  upon reporting and some  are  indeed being  removed forcibly to Zimbabwe.

 

The question that becomes relevant  for  Zimbabwe nationals  who have no claims or appeals pending is  this: have the Home Office retained the person’s valid and current passport at some point?  If so, without a legal basis of  being in the UK, the chances of  resisting removal to Zimbabwe are very much  significantly reduced.

Continue reading

Resisting Deportation: Being a father to British or settled children simply not enough reiterates Court of Appeal

deportedThe Court of Appeal  is clearly at pains  to ensure that both tiers of the Tribunal get the law right  when  considering appeals in relation to foreign national criminals.  As acknowledged in the recent case of The Secretary of State for the Home Department v AJ (Zimbabwe) [2016] EWCA Civ 1012, “There has been a plethora of cases which have come to this court concerning the application of article 8 to foreign criminals and in particular seeking to clarify the scope of the residual “exceptional circumstances” concept. The principles of law are well established and not in dispute in these appeals and therefore I will do no more than summarise the effect of the leading authorities”.

 

Apart from reiterating the  relevant principles, the Court of Appeal also  emphasized that the general framework of Strasbourg law as established in cases such as Maslov cannot simply be slavishly applied  as this  fails to view the Article 8 assessment through the lens of the Immigration Rules and will cause Tribunals to go astray, as  occurred in AJ (Zimbabwe).

Continue reading

Can an EEA national be compulsorily transferred from the UK to serve his sentence in his own country?

The Upper Tribunal  has sought to answer this question in the case of Restivo (EEA – prisoner transfer) Italy [2016] UKUT 449 (IAC).

 

Continue reading