From 1st December 2016 the right to challenge a decision in country will be controlled by administrative decision makers who will have a new power to certify removal of the immigrant as lawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act and remove the appellant from the UK without waiting for the outcome of the appeal.
At present only applications involving aspects of family life in the UK and applications for leave to remain on the basis of long residence are associated with appeal rights. From now on, in country right of appeal will be granted only in those cases where there is a risk of serious irreversible harm if the person is removed before the appeal.
April 25, 2016
The government has published a consultation paper proposing to raise tribunal fees in the First tier immigration Tribunals from the present £140 to £800 per appellant for an oral hearing, or from £80 to £490 per appellant for paper considerations. Appeals in the Upper Tribunal, until now not charged separately, are proposed to incur a fee of £455 for an application for permission at the first stage, further £350 for applications for permission at the second stage, and further £510 for an appeal hearing where permission is granted (£1315 in total).
September 23, 2014
Immigration Act 2014 has amended Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 introducing a new section “Article 8 ECHR: Public Interest Considerations”. This part of the Act applies where a court or tribunal dealing with an immigration appeal is required to determine whether the decision of the immigration authorities breaches the individual’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR.
February 18, 2014
The Upper Tribunal rules that Exception EX-1 in the spouse visa rules - the Human rights cushion for those who do not meet the requirements of Appendix FM but cannot enjoy their family life outside Britain - does not extend to holders of UK visitor's visa.
January 26, 2014
Advocate General to CJEU, Eleanor Sharpston, has delivered her opinion in the joined cases related to asylum claims by three homosexual men. According to the AG homosexual men can form a particular social group for the purposes of Qualification Directive, yet criminalisation of homosexuality is insufficient to demonstrate persecution.…
In MA, BT and DA v SSHD, case C‑648/11, CJEU considered the duty of the Member States in relation to minor children who made an asylum claim in more than one country and found that it is the country of the last claim that is responsible for the decision making in the light of its duty to ensure protection and welfare of the children.…
Best interests of the child must be a primary consideration for immigration authorities. High Court declares that this duty is overlooked in the policy on Discretionary Leave to remain as of October 2009 which requires two spells of limited leave for three years before indefinite leave to remain becomes a viable option.…