Secretary of State for the Home Department v JG (Jamaica)  EWCA Civ 982 (12 June 2019), is one of those few deportation appeal cases in the Court of Appeal, where a deportee convicted of a serious offence successfully resisted deportation; not merely because he had a British child residing in the UK, but because of the impact his deportation would have upon the child.Continue reading
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.
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.
Zambrano claimants applying under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 are being railroaded by the Home Office. Access to a derivative right of residence is being severely restricted, if not shut altogether.
The case of EYF (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 592 (11 April 2019) concerned the proper construction of Paragraph 391(a) of the Immigration Rules.
In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AB (Jamaica) & Anor  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)