Category Archives: Immigration Rules

Brexit and Appendix EU: Changes to the Immigration Rules

In his recent opinion in R O (C‑327/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:644), Advocate General Szpunar lamented that “we know that we know next to nothing about the future legal relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. … Continue reading

Posted in Appendix EU, Brexit, Citizens Directive, CJEU, Employment, European Union, Free Movement, Immigration Rules, Permanent Residence, Politics, Windrush | 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

Refugee Convention: Metropolitan Territory is Distinct from Dependent Territories

R (Bashir & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 45 (30 July 2018) In a complex interim judgment dealing with threshold issues, the Supreme Court has held that both the Refugee Convention 1951 and the … Continue reading

Posted in Asylum, ECHR, Entry Clearance, Free Movement, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Persecution, Proportionality, Refugee Convention, UKSC, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What is the Meaning of ‘Precarious’ in Section 117B(5) of the NIAA 2002?

Having already heard a string of appeals relating to the meaning of “reasonable” in section 117B(6) and the meaning of “unduly harsh” in section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended), recently in Rhuppiah the Supreme Court … Continue reading

Posted in Article 8, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Precariousness, Proportionality, Public Interest, Settlement, Students, Tier 2, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ending the Kumar Arrangements in Judicial Review

R (KA & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Ending of Kumar Arrangements) [2018] UKUT 201 (IAC) (13 June 2018) At times the courts take a lenient approach to governmental ineptitude and judges tend to throw a … Continue reading

Posted in Article 8, Children, Costs, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Immigration Rules, Judges, Judicial Review, Misconduct, Rule of law, Tribunals | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tier 1 (General): Perspectives on Paragraph 322(5) and ILR

Cases in the Tier 1 (General) category present an outrage because we would not really expect highly skilled migrants to be punished for being honest by paying their taxes. Similarly, we would also not expect migrants who add value to … Continue reading

Posted in Appeals, Article 8, Cases, ECHR, False Statements and Misrepresentations, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Misconduct, Pakistan, Paragraph 322(5), PBS, Post Study Work, Proportionality, Public Interest, Tier 1, Tribunals | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 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