“Hundreds of Afghans living in Britain face being deported after immigration judges ruled that their home country’s bloody conflict did not make the region an unsafe place to return failed asylum-seekers.”
The Independent, 23rd October 2009
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Immigration rules have been quietly relaxed to allow tens of thousands of asylum seekers to stay – so a deadline to clear a massive backlog can be met, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.”
Daily Telegraph,
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Asylum seekers are to be subjected to DNA tests in an attempt to confirm their true nationalities, the Observer can reveal.”
The Guardian, 20th September 2009
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Specification of Particularly Serious Crimes) Order 2004, which was made under s 72(4)(a) of the 2002 Act and listed a number of criminal offences which would be presumed, irrespective of the sentence which had been imposed by the court, to fulfil the requirements of art 33(2) of the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, thereby allowing the United Kingdom to refoule someone who had been convicted of one of the offences despite there being a risk to his life or freedom on his return, was ultra vires and unlawful.”
WLR Daily, 29th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The phrase ‘further submissions’, in the context of the Secretary of State’s obligation under r 353 of the Immigration Rules to consider whether any such submissions amounted to a fresh claim for asylum, merely meant representations, whether new or not, and those representations could be short or long, advanced on either asylum or human rights grounds, and reasoned or unreasoned. Where further submissions had in fact been found to have been made, and the question of whether they had already been considered was being asked for the purposes of ascertaining whether they were ‘significantly different’, within the meaning of r 353, and therefore might amount to a fresh claim, it was clear that no particular form was required in which new material to be put before the Secretary of State had to be cast, and that such new material might assert a human rights or asylum claim in a different category from what had been claimed the first time and that, alternatively, the same category of claim may be persisted in, but new facts asserted to support it. Where such previously unconsidered further submissions were found to have been made and the question was being asked whether, taken together with previously considered material, they enjoyed a realistic prospect of success within the meaning of r 353, and amounted thereby to a fresh claim, ‘realistic prospect of success’ meant ‘more than a fanciful such prospect’ and was not the same as a case which was clearly unfounded, the latter being a case with no prospect of success.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (Abdullah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] WLR (D) 185
“Directions for the removal of a person who had no right to remain in the United Kingdom following the dismissal of his claim for asylum were not suspended by virtue of s 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and reg 29 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 by reason of there being pending an appeal against the refusal of his application for a residence card under reg 17 of those regulations.”
WLR Daily, 16th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Hundreds of children fleeing war and persecution will be wrongly denied education and given no more help than adult asylum seekers in the UK under controversial changes introduced by the government, a leading charity warned yesterday.”
The Guardian, 1st June 2009
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The British government is sending refused asylum seekers back home, a Guardian investigation has revealed, despite the fears of human rights campaigners and lawyers that deportees could encounter persecution on their return.”
The Guardian, 27th May 2009
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A person whose asylum claim had been finally determined in country A against him or her and who made a subsequent claim for asylum in country A came within the ambit of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (‘the Reception Directive’) and was therefore able to enjoy the benefits of art 11(2) of that directive and be afforded conditional access to the labour market.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Tough policies to force failed asylum seekers to go home by removing their support are not working, according to a consortium of migrant charities.”
BBC News, 14th May 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Regina (JS) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Court of Appeal
“In order to establish that an asylum seeker was liable for a joint criminal enterprise such as to exclude him from the protection of the Geneva Convention as complicit in war crimes or crimes against humanity, there had to have been a common design which amounted to or involved the commission of a crime provided for by statute.”
The Times, 11th May 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 23; [2009] WLR (D) 148
“The irrebuttable presumption, laid down in paras 2 and 3 of Pt 1 of Sch 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, that a foreign national who entered the United Kingdom via Greece could be returned to Greece because Greece was a place from which he would not be sent to another state to face inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to art 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, was not in itself incompatible with the Convention provided there was no evidence to show that on his return to Greece he was actually at risk of being removed to another country in breach of his art 3 rights.”
WLR Daily, 8th May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
House of Lords
“As there was no evidence that Greece was a place from which a foreign asylum seeker would be deported to his own country to face inhuman and degrading treatment, there was nothing incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in a statutory provision which deemed that Greece was a safe country to which he could be returned from the United Kingdom.”
The Times, 7th May 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Y (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Z (Sri Lanka) v Same
Court of Appeal
“It would be a breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibiting torture, to order the return of an asylum seeker to a country where there was an undisturbed finding that the asylum seeker had been tortured and raped in captivity and where credible and uncontradicted expert evidence was that the likely effect of the trauma, if return was enforced, would be suicide.”
The Times, 5th May 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Hundreds of appeal hearings are going ahead without a representative from the Home Office to defend its original decision to deny asylum.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th April 2009
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same
“A homosexual asylum-seeker could not seek the protection of the court if it were a condition of protection that he hid his membership of a particular social group or modified some attribute or characteristic of the group to avoid persecution.”
The Times, 8th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“A mother and her two daughters who say that they sought sanctuary in Britain after fleeing persecution in Zimbabwe won a reprieve yesterday against deportation.”
The Times, 7th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
R (A) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWCA Civ 225; [2009] WLR (D) 113
“A failed asylum seeker was not ‘ordinarily resident’ within the United Kingdom for the purposes of entitlement to treatment as of right by the National Health Service free of charge. The Guidance as to how a health body should exercise such discretion as it had to grant or withhold treatment in such a case was unlawful for lack of clarity.”
WLR Daily, 1st April 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina (A) v Secretary of State for Health
Court of Appeal
“A failed asylum seeker was not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom so as to be entitled to free treatment by the National Health Service.”
The Times, 2nd April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (AM)(Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Court of Appeal
“An asylum-seeker’s in-country appeal against removal on human rights grounds could not be stifled by the later issue of a certificate by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the opposition was clearly unfounded.”
The Times, 1st April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024