With the Nationality and Borders Bill, the UK is choosing cruelty over morality – EIN Blog

Posted July 20th, 2021 in asylum, bills, citizenship, immigration, news, refugees by sally

‘Immigration is currently dominated by the effects of the ever-growing number of individuals being displaced from their home countries across the world. For countries such as the UK, we have a responsibility to aid these people and offer support for the simple reason that we have the capacity and resources to do so. Despite this, governments have turned the act of seeking refuge into the political zeitgeist of our time; forcing ministers to decide whether to assist the vulnerable or to close the gates to those who desperately need entry.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 19th July 2021

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Important new ruling on access to British Passports for those subject to nationality deprivation proceedings – EIN Blog

‘The Queen (on the application of Leonard Gjini) [2021] EWHC 1677 (Admin). In an important decision handed down on 21 June 2021, Mr Justice Morris clarified the circumstances in which it is permissible for the Home Office to decline to issue British Passports to persons subject to deprivation proceedings under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 rejecting a contention by the Home Office that there was a public interest in refusing based on the fact of a past deception.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 2nd July 2021

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens ‘scrabbling’ to attain post-Brexit status before deadline – The Guardian

Posted June 28th, 2021 in brexit, citizenship, EC law, immigration, news, statistics, time limits, visas by tracey

‘EU citizens are struggling to apply for post-Brexit settled status as the Home Office reaches “breaking point” coping with a last-minute surge in applications. With three days before the deadline of the EU settlement scheme this Wednesday, campaigners say late applicants are being stuck in online queues as others find it impossible to access advice on the government helpline.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 26th June 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Limited leave to remain does not knock out a Zambrano claim – EIN Blog

‘R (Akinsanya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1535 (Admin) (09 June 2021). Mostyn J has held that the SSHD had erred when formulating in Annex 1 paragraph (b) of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules the definition of a “person with a Zambrano right to reside” as “a person … without leave to enter or remain in the UK, unless this was granted under this Appendix”. His Lordship held that it is clear from the decision of the CJEU in Ruiz Zambrano v Office National de l’Emploi (C-34/09), [2012] QB 265, that the holding of a limited national leave to remain and a wider right to remain could and would co-exist in many cases. Furthermore, the natural, fair, reasonable and plain meaning of the words set out in regulation 16 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 entitles an applicant for a derivative right to reside to have the application determined by reference to the prescribed eligibility criteria set out in the regulation rather than being struck out peremptorily. A Nigerian national, Olorunfunmilayo Oluwaseun Akinsanya arrived in the UK in 2006. She had four children, one of whom, C (aged 10), is a British national and she is C’s sole carer. Akinsanya had a six-month visitor visa. She then had a two-year family visit visa. When C was one year old, she applied for a derivative residence card as the Zambrano carer of C. The application was refused, but Akinsanya was successful in her appeal to the FTT and she was then issued with a five-year derivative residence card in September 2014.’

Full Story

EIN Blog , 21st June 2021

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Citizens of somewhere: ‘Zambrano’ carers and the EU Settlement Scheme – Doughty Street Chambers

‘The High Court found the Secretary of State erred in law when framing her definition of a “person with a Zambrano right to reside” under the EU Settlement Scheme (“EUSS”). Mostyn J held that (contrary to Home Office policy) a primary carer of a UK citizen child may have a derivative right to reside on Ruiz Zambrano grounds even where they are entitled to limited leave to remain on another basis, such as under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’

Full Story

Doughty Street Chambers, 14th June 2021

Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

Windrush victim wrongly threatened with forced return to Jamaica in final years, report finds – The Guardian

‘The Home Office made repeated errors that caused a man who had lived in the UK for more than 50 years to be classified as an illegal immigrant and threatened with arrest, prison and forcible removal, the parliamentary ombudsman has found.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 8th June 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Alastair Richardson: The Legality of Home Office Fees – UK Constitutional Law Association

“Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Secretary of State for the Home Department (PRCBC) concerned a challenge to the lawfulness of fees charged to children applying to be registered as British citizens. The fees have a serious adverse impact on the ability of many children to apply for registration.”

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th May 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Tens of thousands of EU citizens in UK to lose legal status next month due to Brexit ‘cliff edge’ – The Independent

Posted May 21st, 2021 in brexit, citizenship, deportation, government departments, immigration, news by tracey

‘Tens of thousands of EU citizens in the UK could lose their legal status next month because of an “arbitrary” deadline that will leave vulnerable people in an “intolerable situation”, MPs and peers have warned.’

Full Story

The Independent, 20th May 2021

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Windrush victims not compensated quickly enough, report finds – The Guardian

‘The Home Office has failed to compensate victims of the Windrush scandal quickly enough, a critical National Audit Office (NAO) investigation into the compensation scheme has found.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 21st May 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Home Office unlawfully stopped family joining Windrush woman, court rules – The Guardian

‘The Home Office unlawfully prevented the children and husband of a Windrush generation woman from joining her in the UK, separating the family for almost three years in a manner the high court ruled represented “a colossal interference” in her right to family life.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 6th May 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Windrush scandal: Concern over wait for compensation – BBC News

‘Campaigners say they are concerned about the low number of compensation payments to victims of the Windrush scandal.’

Full Story

BBC News, 4th May 2021

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

500 Windrush victims waiting more than a year for compensation – The Independent

Posted May 4th, 2021 in citizenship, colonies, compensation, delay, immigration, news by tracey

‘The government is being urged to remove the Windrush compensation scheme from the Home Office after new data showed 214 applicants have been waiting more than 18 months and five people more than two years.’

Full Story

The Independent, 2nd May 2021

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Windrush scandal victim Richard Black to return to UK after 38-year exile – The Independent

Posted April 30th, 2021 in citizenship, colonies, holidays, immigration, news, passports, visas by tracey

‘A Windrush man who has been stranded in Trinidad and Tobago for almost 40 years after his UK citizenship was withdrawn is set to return to Britain.’

Full Story

The Independent, 29th April 2021

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Home Office Windrush decision was irrational, holds High Court – EIN Blog

Posted April 27th, 2021 in citizenship, colonies, government departments, immigration, news by sally

‘Hubert Howard was born in 1956 and came to the United Kingdom in 1960, aged almost 4 from Jamaica. He was part of the Windrush Generation. No doubt like all West Indians of that time, including my parents, he thought he was a British Citizen.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 27th April 2021

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Home Office unlawfully refused Windrush citizens status over minor criminal records, High Court rules – The Independent

‘Windrush victims have been unlawfully denied British citizenship on the grounds of minor criminal records, the High Court has ruled. In a judgement handed down on Friday, the Home Office was found to have wrongly imposed the “good character” requirement on Windrush cases, which led to people who have been in Britain for decades being refused citizenship on the basis of minor convictions.’

Full Story

The Independent, 24th April 2021

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Watchdog steps in over secrecy about UK women in Syria stripped of citizenship – The Guardian

‘The Home Office’s refusal to disclose the number of women who, like Shamima Begum, have been deprived of their British citizenship after travelling to join Islamic State is under investigation by the information commissioner.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

British nationality law reform aims to remove Windrush anomalies – The Guardian

Posted March 19th, 2021 in citizenship, colonies, deportation, government departments, immigration, news by sally

‘British nationality laws are to be reformed to remove a number of anomalies that have recently led to people from the Windrush generation being refused citizenship – despite the Home Office admitting that its own errors led to them being ruled ineligible.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 18th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Michael Foran: Shamima Begum, the Separation of Powers, and the Common Good – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The Supreme Court has come under significant criticism for its handling of the Shamima Begum case, decided on 26 February. Much has already been said in relation to the deference that the court showed to the executive, with some arguing that it was improper or even a complete abdication of the judicial role itself. This post seeks to clarify what precisely the court did and did not do in relation to the exercise of its constitutional duty to review the legality of executive action. It will suggest that the Court did not engage in any strong deference as to the nature of Begum’s rights nor to the balance to be struck between those rights and the common good. Such questions remained wholly within the purview of the Court. While the Court did pay due respect to the executive’s authority to determine and pursue the common good, this was subject to an assessment of lawfulness. Any deference, if it can even be called deference, was to the rule of law, given both the statutory scheme in question and the common law distinction between review and appeal. The determination of the scope of individual rights entails an exercise of judicial interpretation which seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the applicable legal considerations. It is not deference for the court to include constitutional principles such as the separation of powers within those considerations.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

High court rejects bid to extend UK’s EU settlement scheme – The Guardian

‘The high court has rejected a legal bid for an extension to the EU settlement scheme (EUSS), dismissing campaigners’ concerns that those EU residents who fail to apply to remain in the UK before July could face “devastating” consequences, similar to those experienced by the Windrush generation.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 11th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Daniella Lock: The Shamima Begum Case: Difficulties with ‘democratic accountability’ as a justification for judicial deference in the national security context – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘No doubt much will be written on the Supreme Court’s Shamima Begum ruling handed down on 26 February. The ruling has a number of notable features. In particular, a high level of deference was afforded to the executive which seems to contrast with the Supreme Court’s approach in high profile constitutional cases of recent years (such as, for example, in the Miller cases). A key feature of this deference is that it is offered in a national security context, where judicial deference has often played a role. This deference is partly justified by the Court on the grounds that Ministers are democratically accountable for national security decisions. However, as this post argues, the extent to which democratic accountability is a legitimate ground for judicial deference to national security decisions is questionable in light of current UK practice. This post raises three difficulties with relying on democratic accountability as a ground for deference in the UK national security context.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org