Contact Us: + 44 0207 237 3388

Latest UK & International Legal News

TM v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] CSOH 19

TM v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] CSOH 19 OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2017] CSOH 19 P411/16 OPINION OF LADY STACEY In the petition TM Petitioner against THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent Petitioner: Campbell QC, Winter; Drummond Miller LLP Respondent: Gill; Office of the Advocate General 3 February 2017 [1] The petitioner is TM, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo ("DRC"). Her date of birth is 1 March 1962. She arrived in the UK on 4 May 2011 and applied for asylum, which was refused. The petitioner appealed unsuccessfully. Her appeal rights were exhausted on 1 September 2011. The petitioner made further submissions on 8 October 2013 which were refused on 16 June 2015. Further submissions were made on her behalf on 4 January 2016, but the Secretary of State (the respondent) by letter dated 10 February 2016 stated that those submissions did not amount to a fresh claim. The petitioner seeks reduction of that decision and of a further letter from the respondent dated 11 March 2016 which confirms the decision made in the earlier letter and about which I say no more in this opinion. Background [2]...

ABC (AP), Re Judicial Review [2013] CSOH 32

ABC (AP), Re Judicial Review [2013] CSOH 32 SCOTTISH COURT OF SESSION Neutral Citation Number: [2013] CSOH 32 P1231/12 Date of Ruling: 22/02/2013 OPINION OF: LORD BANNATYNE A B C (AP) Petitioner against Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent JUDGMENT ________________ Pursuer: Forrest; Drummond Miller LLP Defender: Gill; Office of the Advocate General 22 February 2013 Introduction [1] The petitioner is a citizen of Afghanistan, born on 1 January 1990. He sought asylum in the United Kingdom on 16 April 2011. The respondent decided by letter and notice of 12 May 2011, to refuse the claim and remove the appellant to Afghanistan. The petitioner appealed to the First-tier tribunal on the grounds that he had a genuine fear of persecution if he were returned to Afghanistan, that he was a refugee and that his rights in terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Convention would be breached if he were returned to Afghanistan. [2] In summary the petitioner's account before the First-tier tribunal was this: the petitioner's father was living and working as a Mullah in Jalalabad. His father and friends were taking taxi drivers from the city and killing them. The petitioner's father's friends,...

How to determine if the continuous period is spent lawfully in the UK

Continuous residence in the UK is an important part of a settlement based application. The applicant must not have spent any of their time in the UK without valid leave to enter or remain. Home Office will refuse indefinite leave to remain (ILR) if the applicant does not meet the continuous period requirement set out in the Immigration Rules. The continuous period requirement is the minimum amount of time which a migrant must spend in employment or being active in the UK economy before being eligible to qualify for ILR. Home Office will assess if the applicant has spent the required minimum time period in the UK, as well as whether they meet all of the other requirements for ILR set out in the Immigration Rules. When you calculate if an applicant has met the continuous period requirement, you must examine how many days absence from the UK they have accrued. The applicant must provide reasons for these absences in all categories except bereaved partner. The majority of applicants are also required to provide evidence of the absence. Evidence is not required from applicants in the following categories: Tier 1 (Investor) (paragraph 245EF) Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) (paragraph 245DF) Tier 1 (Exceptional...