Tag Archives: UK Supreme Court

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

The Coman Case: Same-Sex Marriage and Free Movement Law

The CJEU has held that the term “spouse” within the meaning of the provisions of EU law on freedom of residence for EU citizens and members of their family includes spouses of the same sex. Despite the member states’ freedom to … Continue reading

Posted in Article 8, CFR, Citizens Directive, Citizenship and Nationality, CJEU, ECHR, European Union, Free Movement, Spouses | 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

Undue Harshness and the Public Interest in Deportation

IT (Jamaica) involves the important issue of the weight to be given to the public interest when considering whether a refusal to revoke a deportation order against a foreign criminal would be “unduly harsh” on his British citizen child within the … Continue reading

Posted in Article 8, Automatic Deportation, Children, ECHR, European Union, Families, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Jamaica, Proportionality, Public Interest, s 55 BCIA, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Parental Conduct and the Seven Year Rule

NS (Sri Lanka) and Ors concerns whether section 117B(6) of the 2002 Act permits parental conduct to be taken into account when answering the vexing question of the reasonableness of expecting a child with seven years’ residence to leave the … Continue reading

Posted in Article 8, Automatic Deportation, Children, Court of Appeal, ECHR, False Statements and Misrepresentations, Families, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Misconduct, Nigeria, Post Study Work, Proportionality, Public Interest, s 55 BCIA, Settlement, Sri Lanka, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reasonableness and the Seven Year Rule

Seven years’ residence is seen as a magical milestone in immigration law. The revised Immigration Rules introduced in 2012 and subsequent statutory innovations in the Immigration Act 2014 revived a redundant non-statutory concessionary policy that the seven years’ benchmark should … Continue reading

Posted in Article 8, Automatic Deportation, Children, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Families, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Public Interest, Tribunals, UKSC | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

‘Systemic Failure’: Second Appeals and Indemnity Costs

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Barry [2018] EWCA Civ 790 (17 April 2018) This is another addition to Singh LJ’s expanding collection of heads. The new specimen is a Home Office scalp and it rather shamefully involves … Continue reading

Posted in Appeals, Article 8, Automatic Deportation, Children, Costs, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Extradition, Families, Immigration Act 2014, Immigration Act 2016, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Misconduct, Politics, Proportionality, Racism, Tribunals, UKSC, Windrush | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment