Category Archives: Appendix FM

‘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