Welcome to the latest Bloomsbury Immigration Law Briefing which covers the period up to 20 August 2019. This edition covers three significant pieces of secondary legislation covering, respectively, legal aid, nationality law and European law:
1. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid for Separated Children) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Draft Order 2019 – This brings immigration and nationality applications brought by separated migrant children into scope of legal aid.
2. British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019 (SI 2019/1164) – This removes the good character test for a variety of registration applications.
3. Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/1155) – This makes a variety of amendments, most notably by implementing the CJEU’s decision in SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer to include children in ‘kafala’ arrangements in the definition of extended family members.
Bucking previous trends, the courts have been particularly active over the summer, with significant cases at all levels covering a wide range of matters.
1. R (Sutharsan) v SSHD (UT rule 29(1): time limit)  UKUT 217 (IAC) – Where SSHD is ‘provided’ with an application for judicial review, time to file the acknowledgement of service starts to run from the day after the person concerned is actually provided with a copy of the application for judicial review.
2. Rauf v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1276 – A concession that had been made by SSHD in error in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was allowed to be withdrawn in the Upper Tribunal (UT) where the applicant had not suffered any prejudice as a result.
3. Smith (appealable decisions; PTA requirements; anonymity)  UKUT 216 (IAC) – Where an individual is successful in an appeal before the FTT on some ground(s) but the Tribunal fails to consider a ground and the respondent appeals, the appellant will not be prejudiced by failing to apply for permission to appeal the ground that was not determined if there was no ‘material (ie tangible) benefit’ for their case to be decided on the ground that they lost.
3. BK (Afghanistan) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1358 – When deciding whether to carry forward earlier findings of fact from other tribunals, a second tribunal is not restricted to look only at material post-dating the earlier decision or which was not relevant to the earlier tribunal's determination. The earlier decision is only a starting point.
1. SSHD v Vomero  UKSC 35 – In relation to an individual relying on periods of residence completed prior to 30 April 2006, a period of imprisonment after a period of five years’ continuous legal residence in the UK has the effect of interrupting the continuity of that residence such that a right of permanent residence was not acquired on 30 April 2006.
1. Hameed v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1324 – A false document is itself dishonest and that fact avoids the need to establish dishonesty or deception on the part of the applicant or another under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules.
Asylum, trafficking and deprivation of citizenship
2. R (Islam) v SSHD  EWHC 2169 (Admin) – A father was not prohibited from bringing a claim for judicial review against the decision to deprive his son of British citizenship for joining ISIS in Syria. However, permission was refused on the merits.
3. R (M) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2104 (Admin) – A decision that there were no reasonable grounds to conclude M was a victim of trafficking was irrational due to a variety of errors in the decision.
4. R (MS (A Child)) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 1340 – The court declined to decide whether a refusal to take charge comes within the meaning of ‘transfer decision’ under the Dublin III Regulation.
5. SSHD v MS (Somalia)  EWCA Civ 1345 – SSHD can rely upon the availability of internal relocation as the basis for the cessation of refugee status under article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention.
1. R (HS) v SSHD  EWHC 2070 (Admin) – A person being detained must be informed of the true and specific reasons for their detention, and not just the general reasons.
2. Okedina v Chikale  EWCA Civ 1393 – An employer cannot argue an employment contract is unenforceable because the employee did not have the right to work.
3. R v O  EWCA Crim 1389 – The court overturned a ten-year-old immigration offence where it was found the defendant had been trafficked.
The Immigration Law Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.