28 November 2017 – Helpful and just interesting Immigration News from the Immigration Lawyers who can really help - www.legalcentre.org - Ph: 0330 001 0342 or 07791145923

>>> Domestic violence cases can attract a right of appeal, says High Court : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2017/2589.html

Since April 2015, only very limited types of immigration case can be appealed. In the case of AT, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2589 (Admin), the High Court found that despite what the Immigration Rules say, an application for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of domestic violence can be a human rights claim and therefore attract a right of appeal.

>>>UK BA pays out £24,515.43 by order of a Deputy High Court judge for false imprisonment : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2017/2857.html

Last week Suraj Saptoka was in total awarded (including special damages for loss of earnings) the amount of £24,515.42, together with interest, by order of a Deputy High Court judge for false imprisonment in the case of Sapkota v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2857 (Admin). Mr Saptoka had been unlawfully detained for 36 days after immigration officials wrongfully decided he was attempting to extend his leave to remain by entering into a bigamous marriage.

This massive pay out by the UK BA is not unique. The Secretary of State routinely makes offers to settle where she concedes the unlawfulness of the detention, meaning pure quantum cases often do not reach the courtroom.

>>> First Tier Tribunal slapped down for ignoring Immigration Rules in deportation case : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1782.html

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 1782 the Court of Appeal found that a First-tier Tribunal decision to allow a Jamaican man’s deportation appeal under Article 8 contained a material error of law and set it aside.

In criminal deportation appeals, the court found, the FTT must do more than “simply” engage in a Razgar assessment under Article 8. A finding that deportation would be disproportionate, without considering the substance of paragraphs 398 and 399 of the Immigration Rules, is a material error of law.

>>> Strasbourg dismisses compensation claim for not allowing asylum seeker to work : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-174789

Daniel Negassi v the United Kingdom (application no. 64337/14) was an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights with a complaint that the Home Office’s failure to grant Mr Negassi permission to work, while waiting for a decision on his asylum claim, was a breach of his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

The court found Mr Negassi’s complaint to be inadmissible because it could not be said that the applicant suffered a “significant disadvantage” in the sense that the decision not to grant him permission to work led to serious adverse consequences. Mr Negassi, the court stated, had not suffered from any actual prejudice.

>>> UK BA Guidance on Fee waiver: Human Rights-Based and other specified applications : https://www.google.co.uk/url…

>>> Dental x-rays in age assessment: art not science : http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2017/446.html

The Upper Tribunal Judge Rintoul’s elegant, succinct summary of the law on age assessment, with which he opens the determination in R (AS) v Kent County Council (age assessment; dental evidence) [2017] UKUT 446, reminds one that pinpointing the age of a young person claiming asylum, other than where there is documentary proof, is an art, not a science. It is a question of fact for decision by the court or tribunal itself, as the Supreme Court explained in R (A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8.

>>> Scottish judge: discrimination based on immigration status unlawful : https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search...ts/judgment…

There are a number of interesting findings in the Court of Session judgment, published today, in DN against Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] CSOH 144.

DN is a Ugandan child who applied for entry clearance to join her mother in the UK. Her mother holds discretionary leave (DL) to remain. DN’s application and subsequent appeal were refused, and her applications for leave to appeal were also refused. The later hearing at the Court of Session established that the discrimination based on the immigration status was unlawful, though.

This is a rare and a significant finding of discrimination and it will be interesting to see how (if at all) it will be taken on board by the Secretary of State.

>>> The Home Office is entitled to ignore a judge’s decision to grant bail : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1893.html

The Court of Appeal has reluctantly agreed that the Home Office has the power to ignore a First-tier Tribunal’s decision to grant bail to an immigration detainee. However, on the particular facts of the case, the decision to refuse consent to bail was deemed unlawful.

Despite the impropriety of a departmental civil servant being able to overrule an independent and impartial judge, the Court of Appeal was duty bound to give effect to the clear intention of Parliament. This decision could lead to more regular use of the power to refuse consent by the Home Office, which is deeply concerning.