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

robert_mugabe_1154591cUndeniably, 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

As An Immigration Lawyer, Surely I Too Can Approach Matters Like Muhammad Ali?

 

Muhammad Ali has died.   Why should his death  have such an effect  upon me (and others)?    Sometimes,  it takes  a great mans’ death to seek to know more about him.

Ali 05

 

Continue reading

It Is for The Party Asserting Bias Against an Immigration Judge To Make Good That Allegation

It appears that there is currently no Tribunal Rule  nor other Practice Direction issued in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)  dealing with  conduct or  alleged bias on the part of an Immigration Judge.  The  Court  of Appeal in Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 4,  although finding in that particular case that the  allegation  of  bias against an Immigration Judge had not been made out, offered in a postscript, some suggestions stated to be neither prescriptive nor exhaustive on how to address the issues. The Court of Appeal’s view was that  if  this kind of appeal  is to become more prevalent in this context then it would be much better for the Chamber Presidents, with their specialist expertise and their knowledge of the practicalities and in conjunction with the Senior President of Tribunals as appropriate, to decide whether or not to formulate any Practice Direction or Practice Statement or Guidance Note which may be considered necessary or desirable.

In Singh,  an appeal  reached the Court of Appeal with the argument being focused on an assertion of apparent bias. It was  said that the First-tier Tribunal Judge made remarks at the outset of the appeal hearing before him which indicated that he had a closed mind and/or had prejudged the appeal. The argument was  that the hearing was in consequence unfair.

Continue reading

Getting Ready To Make A Bail application: Random Top Tips For Immigration Detainees

Without it needing to be prolonged, the fact itself of being held in immigration detention  can be quite distressing. Once a person finds themselves detained under immigration powers, it is very most likely with a view to deportation or removal. In such circumstances, the immediate question then becomes when and how best to submit a bail application.

Some several matters set out below may be worth considering  when preparing an application for bail.

Continue reading

Claimant’s duty of candour in judicial review proceedings and evidence proving long residence: What Mr Khan did wrong

The recently reported case of Khan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 416, raises the following  issues in summary:

  • Claimant’s duty of candour in judicial review proceedings;
  • Whether only  documents from “official” sources are acceptable in proving continuous long residence.

In essence, what Mr Khan  did wrong  in seeking to assert that  he  was entitled  to  indefinite  leave to remain under the  previous 14year long residence rule was that he :

  • Put forward two different factual versions of his residence between 1998 and 2001; and
  • In breach of his duty of candour in judicial review proceedings, failed to provide a witness statement explaining the discrepancy between a previous work permit application and subsequent leave to remain application in relation to the said period of residence.

Continue reading

A Proposed Fleecing of Immigrants in the First Tier and Upper Tribunal: The Consultation On New Fees

Yet again another increase of fees for Home office applications and Tribunal  fees. Read more on my overall view on the proposed higher fees and tactics to buy yourself time to pay.

Continue reading