Contact Us: + 44 0207 237 3388

Latest UK & International Legal News

Judicial reviews and injunctions

Judicial review is the legal process that allows a person to challenge the lawfulness of a decision, action or failure to act of a public body such as a government department. There are a number of confusions to the impact on a judicial review application and an immigration appeal. They are not the same. The outcomes are different. Immigration removal cases, where there has been an asylum or human rights claim, should not usually reach the stage of JR until after they have had access to the appeals system. Types of event that could be subject to JR are: a failure to act, such as a delay in issuing a document or making a decision; the setting of removal directions, which usually means that the person lodging the JR believes their removal would infringe their rights (for example, rights under the Refugee Convention, European Convention of Human Rights or European Community instruments); a refusal to accept that further submissions amount to a fresh claim; a decision to certify a claim as clearly unfounded; detention. It is important to understand the grounds of the judicial review, and the procedure laws must be carefully followed. You must submit and give notice where possible. The...

Why you should choose ICS Legal as your UK immigration solicitor

Before we represent the contribution of ICS Legal regarding UK immigration advice let’s, discuss the preliminary responsibilities and accountabilities of the immigration lawyers. Immigration lawyers cover all the areas pertaining to immigration matters. Immigration consultants usually interpret and provide legal advice on migration, citizenship, business immigration issues, political asylum and the successful resolution of visa and immigration issues. When you require getting the permission of staying in the UK or for extending your visa period while residing UK, you must submit the application to the UK home office.  If you lodge an incomplete application it can make your visa process slow and it might take you into visa refusal. In these circumstances, you may receive advice from our UK Immigration consultant.  They ensure you so that all the necessary documents are submitting successfully. However, professional and ethical advice will make your visa process quick and easy. ICS Legal is recognized one of the top UK immigration law firms with over 15 years of combined experience and knowledge in immigration service. Our awarded solicitors help you in ensuring the best services. Its highly recommended team is made up of best immigration solicitors which have ranked as top UK immigration lawyers. At...

Judicial Review and its principles

Judicial Review is a common legal remedy in majority of immigration based applications. One of the main reasons is for the withdrawal of appeal rights and the introduction of Administrative Reviews (AR). The scope of AR is limited and does not permit the Appellant to challenge a decision, or even requesting an application of discretion. Judicial Review has been a growth area of litigation. One of the main reasons in this increase is due to the increasing role of the Government regulating many areas of life. Public bodies take a vast number of decisions which impacts a persons day to day life. I hope the following will give you an understanding on the Judicial Review process and when to lodge one, as these can be quite expensive as well as serious implications to future immigration based applications. You must have a legitimate claim, and able to demonstrate that the decision was made unlawfully. The Court are now Jetly & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 204 (Admin), Mrs Justice Andrews DEB, made a serious remarks on the conduct of the lawyer representing the case in question, putting the matter to SRA for the lack of understanding...

Balajigari v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673

The case of Balajigari v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673, relates to the issues under Tier 1 General refusals in conjunction with paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules HC395. We have highlighted a few important matters for consideration. Here are some relevant details taken from the case itself. If you wish to take advice on this matter, then please contact us on 0207 237 3388 or email our team on info@icslegal.com.  The appeal had the following findings: A number of appeals brought forward to the Tribunal and Courts is whether paragraph 322(5) applies which considers whether it is "undesirable" for a person to be granted indefinite leave to remain. If this does, this case law, as well as many matters before the Tribunal and Courts, is that this paragraph is not mandatory but more of presumptive, in other words, that each matter must be considered correctly. There must be: (i) reliable evidence of (ii) sufficiently reprehensible conduct; and (iii) an assessment, taking proper account of all relevant circumstances known about the applicant at the date of decision, of whether his or her presence in the UK is undesirable (this should include evidence of positive features of...

Safi and others (permission to appeal decisions) [2018] UKUT 00388 (IAC)

Key points on the case (1) It is essential for a judge who is granting permission to appeal only on limited grounds to say so, in terms, in the section of the standard form document that contains the decision, as opposed to the reasons for the decision. (2) It is likely to be only in very exceptional circumstances that the Upper Tribunal will be persuaded to entertain a submission that a decision which, on its face, grants permission to appeal without express limitation is to be construed as anything other than a grant of permission on all of the grounds accompanying the application for permission, regardless of what might be said in the reasons for decision section of the document. D. Procedure Rules 11.     Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 provides as follows:- "Tribunal's consideration of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal 34.—(1) On receiving an application for permission to appeal the Tribunal must first consider whether to review the decision in accordance with rule 35. (2) If the Tribunal decides not to review the decision, or reviews the decision and decides to take no action in relation...

BC v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] CSOH 83

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2017] CSOH 83 P1222/16 OPINION OF LADY SCOTT In the Petition by B.C. Petitioner against SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent Petitioner: Winter; Drummond Miller LLP Respondent: Smith; Office of the Advocate General 2 June 2017 Introduction [1] This is a petition seeking reduction of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse to treat further submissions in a human rights claim as a fresh claim. [2] The further submissions were based upon the petitioner's family life, in particular his dependency on his family in the United Kingdom whereby his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) would be engaged and his removal would constitute a disproportionate interference in those rights. Background of the Claim [3] The petitioner is Chinese. He was born on 21 July 1990. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 17 October 2010 and claimed asylum on 27 October 2010. His asylum claim was refused on 12 November 2010 and his appeal against that decision was refused on 24 November 2010. He then lodged further submissions and additional further submissions the latter of which were the subject of the...

Exceptional circumstances – what does the new changes mean since 10th August 2017

Exceptional circumstances. Where such exceptional circumstances exist, the decision-maker must go on to consider whether the minimum income requirement is met if other credible and reliable sources of income, financial support or funds available to the couple are taken into account. Those sources, and matters to which the decision maker should have regard when assessing their genuineness, credibility and reliability, are set out in paragraph 21A of Appendix FM-SE. The threshold of such exceptional circumstances (which must be met before other credible and reliable sources of income, financial support or funds can be taken into account) is a high one. Where the decision-maker is satisfied, based on the information provided by the applicant, that there are exceptional circumstances which could render refusal of the application a breach of Article 8, the decision-maker should consider whether the applicant has provided evidence of ability to meet the minimum income requirement through other sources. If the applicant has not already done so, the decision-maker should contact the applicant (or their legal representative) in writing requesting that they provide information and evidence in writing of any other credible and reliable source(s) of income, financial support or funds available to the couple which enables the minimum...

McCarthy judgement has no relevance on EEA Family Residence Applications

European Union law – Residence permits – Family members Article 5(2) of the Directive directs Member States to exempt non-EEA family members from visa requirements otherwise applicable under national law if they hold an EU valid “residence card” issued in accordance with Article 10 of the Directive - the UK has refused to do so because of concerns as to abuse of rights and fraud and the lack of uniform or minimum standards for “residence cards” issued by other Member States - under the Frontiers Protocol, the UK is expressly entitled to exercise such controls at its frontiers on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it considers necessary for the purposes of: (a) verifying the rights of EU citizens and their dependents to enter the UK conferred by Union law, or (b) determining whether or not to grant other persons permission to enter the United Kingdom - the UK considers it necessary to maintain controls (those established under Regulation 11 of the EEA Regulations) on non-EEA family members to enable the Border Agency: (a) to verify that those seeking to enter the UK pursuant to free movement rights granted to family members under the Directive are entitled to...

Regulation 24AA of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

The Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2014 amended the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 so that an appeal against a deportation decision under regulation 19(3)(b) of the EEA Regulations will suspend removal proceedings, unless the SSHD has exercised her discretion to certify removal. The SSHD can certify removal if the person’s deportation before the conclusion of any appeal proceedings would not give rise to a real risk of serious irreversible harm or otherwise be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. If removal has been certified, it will only then be suspended if the person subject to removal has made an application to the courts for an interim order to suspend removal proceedings (e.g. judicial review) and that application has not yet been determined, or a court has made an interim order to suspend removal. The application of a regulation 24AA certificate does not prevent a person from lodging an appeal from within the UK; rather, by amending regulation 29 of the EEA Regulations, it limits the suspensive effect of that appeal. So, whilst a person may lodge an appeal in-country, the lodging of such an appeal does not suspend removal from the UK,...

Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Section 17(3) of the Immigration Act 2014 amended the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to introduce a discretionary certification power in relation to human rights claims made by those liable to deportation under sections 3(5)(a) and 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971. Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows a human rights claim to be certified where the appeals process has not yet begun or is not yet exhausted and the Secretary of State considers that removal pending the outcome of an appeal would not breach section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. One ground upon which the Secretary of State may certify a claim under section 94B is that the person liable to deportation would not, before the appeal process is exhausted, face a real risk of serious irreversible harm if removed to the country of return. The result of section 94B certification is that the right of appeal against the decision to refuse the human rights claim is non-suspensive, meaning it is not a barrier to removal. Any appeal can only be lodged and heard, or continued if the claim is certified after the appeal is lodged, while the person is outside the...