Temporary admittance applications by deported EEA nationals to have appeals heard in the UK: Kasicky doubted

Strangely, although the case of R (on the application of Gabor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reg 29AA: interpretation) [2017] UKUT 287, was promulgated on 25 October 2016,  it appears to have only been published on 12 July 2017 by the Upper Tribunal.  A delay  of 8months- even more perplexing as the judgment itself is relatively short.



As to the effect of the decision, for practical purposes, it does not matter whether the  temporary admission application considered in Gabor was under the now redundant 2006 EEA Regulations via  Regulation 29AA or Regulation 41 of the new 2016 Regulations.



Continue reading

Humanitarian Protection: Court of Appeal revises and amends current country guidance AA(Iraq)


Although the Court of Appeal  in  AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 944 (11 July 2017) undertook a painstakingly long and  arduous  analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and caselaw  on the arising  jurisdictional  point, for current purposes  it is important to note that the current  Iraq country guidance caselaw has been amended.


The Court of Appeal could not help but observe that the case presented the unusual situation where both the Appellant and the Secretary of State agreed that  there  was an error in the  Country Guidance Case, AA (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG [2015] UKUT 544 (IAC).


The parties agreed before the Court of Appeal  that the appeal should be allowed albeit on a narrow ground.


Continue reading

Zimbabwean national with 17years UK residence satisfies the rigorous “very significant obstacles to integration” requirement in both tiers of the Tribunal

Disappointingly in this case, the  First Tier Tribunal permitted  itself to be persuaded  by the Home  Office  to grant  permission to appeal in relation to an Immigration  Judge’s decision allowing  the Appellant’s Article 8 appeal.


Ironically, the same Home Office Guidance on private life which the Secretary of State  relied  upon and which formed the basis of grant of permission, was utilized  to the Appellant’s benefit in the Upper Tribunal – although neither   the presenting officer nor  myself  at the First Tier Tribunal hearing   referred to  it all.  The Immigration Judge made no reference to  the guidance in her decision when allowing the Appellant’s appeal.


Continue reading

Do public disagreements between Zimbabwean focused human/civil rights protest groups in the UK help the genuinely active Zimbabwean asylum claimant?

I have always admired and continue to admire the various Zimbabwean focused human rights and civil society organisations active in protest in the UK advocating for positive change in Zimbabwe.  Whether or not the UK based activity emanates from well-established groups, newly formed ones  or even  via emergence of  social  media based activity,  the efforts are admirable nonetheless.


Continue reading

Children adequate best interests’ assessment: Whether the Secretary of State has a Section 55(1) proactive duty of enquiry

It is all about context,  said the Upper Tribunal in Ahmed and Others (deprivation of citizenship) [2017] UKUT 00118 (IAC), in declining to find in that appeal that the Secretary  of State owed a Section 55(1)  proactive duty of enquiry in relation to the  consideration of the  welfare and best interests of the children.


The conjoined appeals in Ahmed had their origins in a series of decisions made by the Secretary of State proposing to deprive the Appellants of their British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Within the  course  of the appeals however,  the Upper Tribunal had to consider the  content of the duty owed by the Secretary of State under section 55(1) of the 2009 Act in the Appellant’s cases.


Continue reading

Court of Appeal approves country guidance CM( Zimbabwe) and advocates less restrictive approach to Article 3 claims

In The Secretary of State for the Home Department v MM (Zimbabwe) [2017] EWCA Civ 797 (22 June 2017),  the Court of Appeal very recently  sought to advocate a less restrictive approach  to an Article 3 mental health condition claim from a Zimbabwean national,  yet  within its judgment,  glaringly  fails to  refer to the ECHR case of Paposhvili, from which that approach can arguably be said  to originate from.


Continue reading