‘More than 30,000 non-EU students a year have had their visas curtailed by the Home Office in the past three years, figures obtained by BBC News show.’
BBC News, 23rd April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Ministry of Justice has revealed plans to increase the cost for immigrants to appeal against Home Office decisions by up to 500 per cent.’
The Independent, 22nd April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘British border guards are virtually powerless to stop and detain Britons they suspect of returning from jihad or terrorism training, a whistle-blower has disclosed. UK Border Force guards have “zero discretion” to detain and interview travellers trying to re-enter Britain if they hold a UK passport and have not been “flagged” by police or security services.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st April 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Home Secretary has revealed plans to place a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women.’
Home Office, 18th April 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘The government is paying more than £4m each year in compensation to people who were held unlawfully in immigration detention centres, figures show.’
BBC News, 20th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Campaigners have criticised as disappointing the home secretary’s plan to place a 72-hour limit on the detention of pregnant women held at immigration detention centres.’
The Guardian, 18th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Government has been barred from deporting six men to Algeria because there is a “real risk” they could be tortured there, judges have ruled.’
The Independent, 18th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The government’s residence test that deprives those who have lived in the UK for less than 12 months of legal aid faces a major challenge at the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 17th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Theresa May will announce plans to place a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women at immigration centres after the House of Lords voted in favour of an all-out ban.’
The Guardian, 17th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed an appeal brought by a Children’s Guardian in a case concerning whether the courts of England or Hungary should have jurisdiction to determine proceedings concerning the future welfare of two young girls.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘It has never been easy to win as an immigration lawyer – but now the government is trying to make it impossible.’
The Guardian, 14th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Home Office has issued a new updated version of its policy on section 3C and 3D leave: Leave extended by section 3C (and leave extended by section 3D in transitional cases). Section 3C and 3D leave is an automatic type of leave created by an amendment to the Immigration Act 1971 so that where a person makes a valid application to extend his or her leave to enter or remain and the application is refused, that person’s immigration status would be extended during any waiting time for the application to be decided or for an appeal to be decided.’
Free Movement, 11th April 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The number of suicide attempts in immigration removal centres is at an all-time high, averaging more than one a day, according to official figures.’
The Guardian, 4th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘April 2016 is a month of big changes for people living and working in the UK. A number of new laws and policies are coming into force, affecting just about everyone from public sector workers to dog owners. Here’s what the new laws could mean for you.’
The Independent, 3rd April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has awarded the family member of an EU national a total of £136,048 in damages. The award consists of £76,578 for false imprisonment and £59,470 for breach of EU law. The Home Office is also criticised for having made “inaccurate and misleading” submissions to previous judges on multiple occasions and the damages include not just compensatory damages for lost earnings and distress but also special damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages.’
Free Movement, 30th March 2016
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘Home Secretary Theresa May allegedly wrongly deported up to 50,000 international students after an English test cheating scam at one school was used to incriminate all who had sat the test.’
The Independent, 29th March 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Theresa May is to face a parliamentary investigation after an immigration tribunal ruled that the Home Office used unscientific “hearsay” to deport thousands of students from Britain.’
The Independent, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The government has been defeated in the Lords as peers voted to allow 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees into the country.’
The Guardian, 21st March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Boateng; [2016] EWCA Crim 57
‘The defendant. a Ghanaian national, held a non-European Union passport. His wife, also a Ghanaian national, assumed the identity of a deceased Ghanaian national, who had had Dutch citizenship, and obtained a Dutch identification card and a Dutch passport under that false identity. The defendant and his wife had an infant daughter. On the false premise that he and the daughter were entitled to reside in the United Kingdom by virtue of his wife’s falsely assumed status as a European Union national, the defendant obtained residence cards, each in the form of a Home Office stamp in a non-European Union passport, for himself and the daughter. On three occasions the defendant used his passport, containing the residence card stamp, to enter the United Kingdom, and on one occasion he used it to open a bank account in there. The defendant and his wife were charged with various immigration and documentation offences. The defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts, charged as follows: (i) seeking or obtaining leave to enter or remain in the UK by the deception of applying to the Home Office for a residence card for himself (count 2) and for a certificate of naturalisation (count 12), contrary to section 24A(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971; (ii) facilitating the commission of a breach of section 10(1)(c) of the “Immigration Act 1999” by obtaining leave for his daughter to enter or remain in the UK by the deception of applying to the Home Office for a residence card for her, contrary to section 25(1) of the 1971 Act (count 3); (iii) possessing false identity documents with intent, contrary to section 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 (counts 4 to 7); and (iv) being in possession or control with intent of an identity document, namely a British passport in his own name that he knew or believed to have been improperly obtained in February 2012, contrary to section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 (count 13).’
WLR Daily, 16th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Khan [2016] EWCA Civ 137
‘The applicant, a Pakistani national, entered the United Kingdom with leave to remain. On 20 February 2012, before the expiry of his leave, he applied under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 student, intending to study at a particular college which at that time was a registered licensed sponsor. However, by the time the United Kingdom Border Agency came to consider his application, the licence of his sponsoring college had been revoked. The agency suspended consideration of the application to enable the applicant to find a new sponsor and then submit an application to vary the grounds of his original application for further leave to remain, which the applicant did on 9 October 2012. Paragraph 34E of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules provided that if a person wished to “vary the purpose” of an application for leave to remain, the variation had to comply with the requirements for making an application as if the variation were a new application, or the variation would be invalid. The agency refused the applicant’s application to vary the grounds of his original application since, on 9 October 2012, he did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1A(a) of Appendix C to the Immigration Rules, which provided that an applicant had to have a certain level of maintenance funds “at the date of the application”. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal, holding that paragraph 34E did not apply in the applicant’s case since the applicant had not sought to vary the “purpose” of his application, which throughout had remained the same, namely to remain as a Tier 4 student; and that, therefore, the applicant had not been obliged to meet the maintenance fund requirements on 9 October 2012.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024