Category Archives: Appendix FM

Appendix FM: SSHD cannot push parent into partner route

R (Khattak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (“eligible to apply” – LTR – “partner”) [2021] UKUT 63 (IAC) (23 February 2021 Granting judicial review, the UT has held that an applicant is “eligible to apply for leave to … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Pakistan, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NAO report: Home Office is not delivering value for money

The report on Immigration Enforcement by the National Audit Office (NAO) makes poor reading for the Home Office because it “does not yet have a full understanding of how its activities affect the progress those people take through each part … Continue reading

Posted in Access to Justice, Appeals, Appendix FM, Article 8, Asylum, Culture, Deportation, Detention, Families, Fees, Hostile Environment, Immigration Rules, NAO, Windrush | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules CP 232

Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules CP 232 of 14 May 2020 makes a raft of changes to the Immigration Rules which will take effect on 4 June and 24 August. Some changes are being made to the Immigration … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix EU, Appendix FM, Immigration Rules, PBS, Tier 1, Tier 2 | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Mother of British child fails on Chikwamba and Zambrano

Younas (section 117B(6)(b); Chikwamba; Zambrano) [2020] UKUT 129 (IAC)(24 March 2020)  Chikwamba [2008] UKHL 40 and Zambrano (C-34/09, EU:C:2011:124) were landmark cases. The Chikwamba principle is that there is no public interest in removing a person from the UK in … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Asylum, Children, CJEU, COVID-19, ECHR, European Union, Human Rights Act, Immigration Rules, Judges, Pakistan, Proportionality, Public Interest, Removals, Spouses, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Domestic violence claim is not a human rights claim 

MY (refusal of human rights claim: Pakistan) [2020] UKUT 89 (IAC) (27 February 2020)  This decision brings further detriment to applicants relying on the domestic violence rules to obtain leave to remain. The result is that the Home Office can … Continue reading

Posted in Appeals, Appendix FM, Article 3, Article 8, COVID-19, Domestic Violence, ECHR, Hostile Environment, Human Rights Act, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Pakistan, Settlement, Spouses, Tribunals | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Home Office sticks to its guns on paragraph 322(5)

In Balajigari [2019] EWCA Civ 673 (discussed here), the Court of Appeal held that the use of paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules in the cases of highly skilled Tier 1 (General) migrants (T1GMs) was “legally flawed” because SSHD decision-makers … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Appendix V, Court of Appeal, Deception, False Statements and Misrepresentations, Paragraph 322(5), PBS, Settlement, Tier 1 | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Court of Appeal: Guidance on Entry Clearance and MIR

Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 1776 (27 July 2018) The Supreme Court’s ruling in MM (Lebanon) [2017] UKSC 10 permitted the operation of the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) for partners in Appendix … Continue reading

Posted in Appeals, Appendix FM, Blake J, Children, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Entry Clearance, Immigration Rules, MIR, Precariousness, Proportionality, Spouse visa, Spouses, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme

As if Appendix FM and its sinister siblings were not enough, soon free movement law will interact with the Immigration Rules in the form of Appendix EU so as to implement settled status for EU citizens and their family members. … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix EU, Appendix FM, Article 8, Automatic Deportation, Brexit, Citizens Directive, CJEU, ECHR, Enhanced Protection, European Union, Free Movement, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Permanent Residence, Proportionality, Public Interest, Settlement, Spouses, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Restricted Leave: Only Rare Cases are Suitable for Settlement

Babar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 329 (01 March 2018) Tanvir Babar used to be a Pakistani policeman. He worked in law enforcement for 17 years and was in charge of a squad of … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 3, Article 8, Asylum, ECHR, False Statements, Immigration Rules, Integration, Pakistan, Proportionality, Public Interest, Refugee Convention, RLR, Settlement | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Article 8 After Agyarko: The Correct Approach

TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 (17 May 2018) These appeals were heard after the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Agyarko) [2017] UKSC 11 (see here) which made it … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Families, Human Rights Act, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, India, Pakistan, Proportionality, Public Interest, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Article 8 and ADRs: The End of the Line?

Ribeli v Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria [2018] EWCA Civ 611 (27 March 2018) Singh LJ has recently taken yet another scalp. On this occasion his Lordship’s sword fell on the head of a helpless and elderly woman, a South African national … Continue reading

Posted in ADR, Appendix FM, Appendix V, Article 8, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Entry Clearance, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Public Interest, Tribunals, UKSC, Visitors, Women | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

‘Nothing Irrational’ about Abolishing Appeal Rights in Domestic Violence Cases

R (on the application of AT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2589 (Admin) (18 October 2017) These judicial review proceedings relate to appeal rights in a hostile environment, domestic violence and indefinite leave to remain … Continue reading

Posted in Appeals, Appendix FM, Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Domestic Violence, ECHR, Forced marriage, Human Rights Act, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Pakistan, Settlement | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Aligning the Immigration Rules with MM (Lebanon)

Judicial review claims known as MM (Lebanon) & Ors [2017] UKSC 10 challenging the Minimum Income Requirements (MIR) under Appendix FM ended in overall disappointment for divided families. Partial success at first instance resulted in momentary jubilation. But ultimately, following … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Children, ECHR, Employment, Families, Human Rights Act, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Proportionality, s 55 BCIA, Settlement, UKSC, Working | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Article 8 and ‘Catch 22’: New Rules for ADR are Lawful

BritCits v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 368 (24 May 2017) “Dead woman walking” zombie Theresa May’s odium for the sick and elderly achieved infamy long before her “dementia tax” debacle. The courts have … Continue reading

Posted in ADR, Appendix FM, Article 8, Dependants, ECHR, Immigration Rules, India, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Tribunals | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Insurmountable Obstacles’ and ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Tests Approved by Supreme Court

Agyarko and Ikuga v SSHD [2017] UKSC 11 (22 February 2017) “Insurmountable obstacles” and “exceptional circumstances” are every day expressions in immigration law but their real meaning has eluded the cleverest of judges. These two cases provided the Supreme Court … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Children, CJEU, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Enforcement, Entry Clearance, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Spouses, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Supreme Court: MIR is Lawful

MM (Lebanon) & Ors v SSHD and Anor [2017] UKSC 10 (22 February 2017) Victims of the dreaded Minimum Income Requirement must have preferred the first instance judgment when they enjoyed greater success before a single judge. Afterwards the Court … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 12, Article 14, Article 8, Children, ECHR, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, MIR, Proportionality, s 55 BCIA, Spouses, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

‘Sub-optimal’ Supplementary Decision Letters Are Lawful

Caroopen & Myrie v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1307 (20 December 2016) The use of supplementary decision letters is widespread in immigration judicial review. They are used in various situations in order to cure … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Children, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Immigration Rules, Jamaica, Judicial Review, Nigeria, Tribunals, Visitors | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Suitability Criteria for Entry Clearance are ‘Rather Clumsy’

Entry Clearance Officer – United States of America v MW (United States of America) & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 1273 (14 December 2016) Entry clearance for a foreign national with significant previous criminal convictions is dealt with under paragraph S-EC.1.4. … Continue reading

Posted in Appeals, Appendix FM, Article 8, Asylum, Children, Deportation, ECHR, Entry Clearance, Immigration Rules, Proportionality, Public Interest, UKBA 2007, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Children’s Rights Are Not Passports Against Deportation

Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 59 (16 November 2016) Makhlouf entered the UK in 1997 as the spouse of settled person and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1999. He was … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Automatic Deportation, Children, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Families, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Proportionality, Tribunals, UKBA 2007, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Article 8 and Precariousness: Appendix FM in Supreme Court

These days the Immigration Rules are full of riddles. Applying a gloss on article 8 of the ECHR, wide-ranging rubric under the existing rules incorporates high legal tests such as “insurmountable obstacles”, “exceptional circumstances”, “compelling circumstances” and “exceptionality”. Such phrases dictate the … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix FM, Article 8, Blogging, ECHR, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Proportionality, Spouses, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment