A NEW MANUAL ON WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN ENCOUNTERED BY THE HOME OFFICE

Posted on October 11, 2016 by alicemuzira Standard Reply

A readily accessible and detailed Manual which manoeuvres through the processes in relation to how and when certain persons may be encountered by the Home Office via home office enforcement visits, raids, through to absconder processes, search and seizure powers of the Home office, arrest and restraint powers of the Home Office, the types of Home Office interviews conducted upon encounter, encountering of adults at risk, how the Home Office gather information and much more. A simple click on each heading within the Manual will take you to the relevant section of interest.

a-manual-on-what-to-expect-when-encountered-by-the-home-office-pdf

New Immigration and Appeals Tribunal Fees Increase Guidance

Posted on October 10, 2016 by alicemuzira Standard Reply

Two separate sets of fees Guidance have been published catering for Home Office decisions dated between 19 December 2011 and 9 October 2016 and decisions made on or after 10 October 2016.

Continue reading

The Increase to Immigration Tribunal Appeal Fees: What Appellants Need to Know

Posted on September 23, 2016 by alicemuzira Standard Reply

In relation to Tribunal Fees, the Government Response to the consultation on proposals for the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), was published on 15 September 2016.

The document sets out the Government Response to the consultation, Consultation on proposals for the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), published on 21 April 2016.

Continue reading

Foreign Criminal: Court of Appeal Finds Very Significant Obstacles To Integration in Country of Return

Posted on August 11, 2016 by alicemuzira Standard 1

The newly notified case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813, shows that sometimes the Secretary of State does not always get what she wants: ie churning out of permission applications in deportation appeal cases with the sole purpose of convincing the Upper Tribunal or Court of Appeal to overturn an allowed deportation appeal.

The Court of Appeal in Kamara made it clear that contrary to the Secretary of State’s submissions, the case in truth did not raise important points of principle, however in a short and to the point judgement has made important clarifications in relation to the phrase, “there would be very significant obstacles to his integration into the country to which it is proposed he is deported”, which appears in Paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules and Section 117C(4) of the 2002 Act.

Continue reading

Public Interest Considerations :Court of Appeal Gives Guidance On Concept Of “Precariousness”

Posted on August 5, 2016 by alicemuzira Standard Reply

In Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 803, the Court of Appeal sought to deal with several matters at once as regards issues of interpretation of Sections 117A to 117D in Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as inserted by the Immigration Act 2014). What was in issue therefore was the public interest question – ie the question whether an interference with a person’s right to respect for private and family life is justified under Article 8(2) of the ECHR.

Continue reading

Unlawful detention: Court grapples with the problem of Zimbabwe’s refusal to accept enforced removals from the UK

Posted on July 16, 2016 by alicemuzira Standard 2

Undeniably, there are long standing “problems” between the Zimbabwean and UK authorities but these are spilling over and affecting whether and how soon the UK authorities can deport or remove affected Zimbabwean nationals to Zimbabwe.

The case of JM (Zimbabwe), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1773, dealt with several issues, ranging from discussion on the demise of President Mugabe; whether the Home Office could lawfully require the Claimant, under section 35 of the 2004 Act, to tell Zimbabwean officials that he agreed to return voluntarily; whether the claimant’s refusal to sign a disclaimer that he would return to Zimbabwe could be seen as deliberate obstruction rather that a refusal to return voluntarily; whether the Secretary of State can use section 35 serially, “for as many times as it takes”; whether the pursuit of a section 35 prosecution amounted to improper pressure and/or an uncovenanted exercise of the power to detain and whether section 35 can be legitimately used by the Secretary of State both to secure compliance and to justify detention.

Continue reading