Bloomsbury Immigration Law Briefing: September Teaser

In this month’s briefing we cover case law and other developments up to 10 September 2018. With Brexit nearing there have been amendments to the EEA Regulations and the addition of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules to introduce the new Settled Status scheme for EEA nationals. There is also some new Presidential Guidance on costs for the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).

The Supreme Court considered the long running saga of 6 refugees who have been n British bases on Cyprus since 1998 in R (on the application of Tag Eldin Ramadan Bashir and others) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2018] UKSC 45; the Court of Appeal considered the policy concerning children who had been in the 'Jungle' camp in Calais in R (on the application of Citizens UK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1812; in Diop, R (On the Application Of) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 1934 (Admin) the High Court considered the consequences of the Home Office’s failure to provide a bail address. In R (on the application of TM (A Minor) by his litigation friend, The Official Solicitor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Minor - asylum - delay) [2018] UKUT 00299 the impact of delay in considering asylum claims was assessed.

In cases dealing with family members of EEA nationals there was good news for those with a retained right of residence in Gauswami (retained right of residence: jobseekers) India [2018] UKUT 00275 (IAC) but bad news for extended family members who had not made an application to the Home Office requesting residence on that basis in Macastena v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1558. On a procedural from the Court of Appeal considered when an on-line application was made in Singh, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 166. There was also guidance from the Upper Tribunal (UT) in AZ (error of law: jurisdiction: PTA practice) Iran [2018] UKUT 00245 (IAC) on when leave to appeal could be given on potential errors of law which were not advanced by the appellant. The UT also considered the impact of failings by a previous representative in Mansur (immigration adviser’s failings: Article 8) Bangladesh [2018] UKUT 00274 (IAC). There is an interesting decision on the logical interpretation of the British Nationality Act 1981 in K (A Child) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1834.

In asylum cases the UT considered when protection status could be revoked in Essa (Revocation of protection status appeals) [2018] UKUT 00244. They also considered the risk to Ukrainian draft evaders in PK (Draft evader: punishment: minimum severity) Ukraine [2018] UKUT 00241 and the Court of Appeal considered the potential risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR if individuals were removed to Gaza in MI (Palestine) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1782.

The Immigration Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.

Written by Ellie MacKenzie

Subscribe to the Bloomsbury Professional Law Newsletter

Law Online

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw Online research for solicitors and barristers practising in English law Free Trial

Need Help?

Bloomsburyprofessionallaw If you need any help with finding publications or just ask a question. Talk to an Advisor: 01444 416119
customerservices@bloomsburyprofessional.com
or send us a message