Category Archives: Deportation
7 Year Children Rule: Court of Appeal Clarifies the Correct Approach to the Reasonableness Test
It has taken all of 3years and 7months for there to be clarification from the higher Courts as regards the correct approach to the reasonableness test in Paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) of the Immigration Rules. The Court of Appeal’s judgment on the issue in MA (Pakistan) & Ors, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 705, makes very interesting reading.
Continue reading
Court of Appeal’s Further Guidance On The Correct Approach To Deportation Appeals
In addition to noting that the Court of Appeal has provided yet further guidance in relation to deportation appeals in NA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 662, legal practitioners need to brace themselves for yet further wordplay in relation to newly introduced deportation lingo. We are now familiar with and have grown fairly comfortable with regularly used terms such as, “ a free standing Article 8 analysis” and “ through the lens of the immigration rules”. The Court of Appeal in NA (Pakistan) has gone further; as noted at paragraph 14 of their judgement, when considering the Immigration Rules on deportation, foreign criminals are divided into two categories: those with sentences of between one and four years’ imprisonment and those sentenced to four years or more. The Court of Appeal then decided for the sake of “simplicity”, that the first category shall be referred to as ‘medium offenders’ and the second category as ‘serious offenders’.
Continue reading
Court of Appeal Clarifies Correct Approach in Adult Children Article 8 Cases
The Court of Appeal has recently, in the case of PT (Sri Lanka) v Entry Clearance Officer, Chennai [2016] EWCA Civ 612, sought to set out the law as to the circumstances in which an adult child can be regarded as enjoying family life with his parents and/or siblings.
Continue reading
Why Is The Home Office Increasingly And Routinely Appealing Allowed FTT Decisions …..And Getting Away With it?
The Home Office appears to becoming a serial lodger of appeals and getting away with it.
The Problem:
I have a stash of recently allowed appeal decisions with a corresponding number of clients anxiously awaiting the outcome of Home Office permission applications lodged in the First Tier Tribunal. It cannot be the case that all the FTT Judges who allowed “my” several appeals heard in the last few weeks are getting it wrong. If that is so then there is a serious problem …….somewhere.
When Things Go Wrong in the Court of Appeal: Harsher Criticism Reserved for Shortcomings of Home Office Presenting officers
“I am yet to take instructions on the point, Sir”
This should hopefully never be heard uttered again in the Tribunal by Home Office Presenting Officers upon a Judge making enquiry about relevant changes in the law or current Home Office policy. I say this following the Court of Appeal’s judgement in Koori & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 552. The Court’s view in effect was that although both Appellants and the Secretary of State should attend appeal hearings fully prepared in terms of the law, however, in particular where matters of statutory changes are concerned, the greater responsibility lies upon the Home Office Presenting Officers. This surely is correct and it is surprising that it has taken so long for this to be stated in a judgement.