Court of Appeal: Article 3 threshold still very high after Paposhvilli and the stringent “very compelling circumstances test” in deportation cases

The real value in The Secretary of State for the Home Department v PF (Nigeria) [2019] EWCA Civ 1139 (04 July 2019) lies in the Court of Appeal’s review, considerations and conclusions upon the relevant statutory provisions, Immigration Rules and caselaw as applicable to a case giving rise to both an Article 3 medical condition claim and Article 8 deportation appeal.

Continue reading

A case where the Secretary of State should have accepted defeat 5years ago

The UT’s characterisation of the appeal was related to some trenchant observations which it made about what it perceived to be the Secretary of State’s practice of appealing routinely in any case where the FTT allowed an appeal against a deportation order, without any real attempt to identify an error of law as opposed to simply disputing the tribunal’s factual assessment. We are not in a position to comment either way about those observations, beyond saying that we hope that that is not the Secretary of State’s practice now, if it ever was”, so said Lord Justice Underhill in the Court of Appeal recently in Secretary of State for the Home Department v JG (Jamaica) [2019] EWCA Civ 982 (12 June 2019).

Continue reading

Iraq and Article 3 claims: Admin Court curbs overzealous attempts to override current country guidance caselaw

The Secretary of State has over the past few years been relentless in his pursuit of convincing the higher courts that there is some need or reason to depart from established country guidance caselaw on Humanitarian Protection and Article 3 claims originating from Iraq returnees.

Continue reading

Inflexibility within new mandatory online application process: Redundancy of “10 working day grace period” to pay Immigration Health Surcharge

The new online application process, whilst appearing on the surface to have provided a “straightforward” method of completion of online application forms, in practice has inbuilt inflexibility and unfairness on issues that matter the most, ie fees.

 

Continue reading

Court of Appeal endorses Upper Tribunal in JG on interpretation of section 117B(6)(b): Reasonable to expect a child to leave the UK and parental relationship

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AB (Jamaica) & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 661 (12 April 2019), the Court of Appeal, among other issues considered Section 117(B)(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Immigration Act 2014, in the following respects:

 

  • “a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child” in section 117B(6)(a), and

  • “it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom” in section 117B(6)(b)

The Court of Appeal made it clear that the,“ position has now been reached in which this Court is not only free to depart from the approach taken by Laws LJ in MM (Uganda) but indeed is required to do so in order to follow the binding decision of the Supreme Court in KO (Nigeria)”.

Continue reading

Upper Tribunal on the interpretation of Section 117B(6)(b) and how a “reasonable to leave” construction can be more favourable than an Article 8 proportionality exercise

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53,  the Upper Tribunal in JG (s117B(6) : “reasonable to leave” UK) Turkey (Rev 1) [2019] UKUT 72 (IAC) (15 February 2019), considered the proper construction of Section 117B(6) with the surprsing result that on the facts, an Appellant who was found to be, “both dishonest and unscrupulous, each to a high degree…… flagrantly defied the law of the United Kingdom by overstaying her leave for a large number of years”, succeeded in her appeal.

 

Continue reading