Apparently, what migrants are currently paying to the UK Government in order to have their entry clearance or leave to remain applications processed is simply not enough: they need to pay more and quickly.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Liability to administrative removal, RED Notices, removal windows and injunctions: Your frequently asked questions answered
The following heads of consideration are raised in detail below:
-
Liability to non- EEA Administrative Removal
-
Notice of liability to Administrative Removal- RED Notices
-
Judicial Review
-
Notices of removal
-
Removal- the Notice Periods
-
Deferral of Notice Periods
-
Deferral of Removal
-
Injunctions
-
Rule 39 Indications from the European Court of Human Rights
-
Relevant Home Office policy Guidance
What you need to know about the varying levels of mandatory re-entry bans
People seeking to come to the UK may be refused entry because they are the subject of a one year, 2 year, 5 year or 10 year re-entry ban.
People may be the subject of a re-entry ban where they have previously breached the UK’s immigration laws by:
-
overstaying
-
breaching a condition attached to their leave
-
being an illegal entrant,
-
using deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain (whether successful or not)
Continue reading
Straightjacket effect of MS(Pakistan): The problem of the First Tier Tribunal’s restricted approach to negative trafficking decisions
Would the Tribunal have found themselves in the straight jacket that the Court of Appeal has clothed it with had the Upper Tribunal not “exceeded it’s jurisdiction” or “ overreached itself” as concluded by the Court in The Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594?
The appeal in MS in the Court of Appeal raised an issue of principle as to the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal on a statutory appeal under section 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 Act to undertake an indirect judicial review of a negative trafficking decision made by the Secretary of State in that individual’s case. In that context, the appeal was noted to concern the scope and effect of the previous decision of the Court of Appeal in AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1469.
Political hot potato: Home Office refuses to disclose whether the Zimbabwean government will now issue ETD’s to non-consenting undocumented returnees
The subject of whether the Zimbabwean government has now made a U-turn from Mugabe’s previous position of refusing to accept unwilling Zimbabwean returnees without valid national passports, seems too hot to handle.
“A Response from the UK Government is long overdue, with stated reasons on 25 July 2018 being that, “ this is due to internal delays with our FOI process”. It therefore remains to be seen, which if any, of the questions raised will be addressed by the Home Office in response”, was the conclusion to the recent blog post of 3 August 2018, The impact of Mnangagwa’s win upon UK based Zimbabwean asylum claimants
The SEF is back! Not as we know it, but under the guise of the Preliminary Information Questionnaire(PIQ). The Home Office have in recent weeks been sending out the questionnaire to a good number of adults who have claimed asylum, been screened but are yet to be substantively interviewed.