Immigration - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 92 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Turgut [2000] Imm LR 306
2000	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers

Kibiti -v- Home Secretary [2000] Imm AR 594
2000 CA Buxton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court took a strict approach to the issue of admission of evidence which might demnostrate that the decision under appeal was based upon an error of fact. The appellant was a citizen of the Congo who had been refused asylum and failed in his appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had concluded that there was a state of civil war in the Congo, a view which was challenged by the appellant by reference to a report written after the Tribunal hearing. Held: The court rejected the appeal, but undertook a detailed review of the Tribunal's conclusions on the material available to it. Peter Gibson LJ said the appellant had sought to rely on a report by a Dr Manley, which had not been before the Tribunal at the time of its hearing but was provided to it when permission was asked to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Peter Gibson LJ agreed with the approach that whih prevented the material being received by the Court, on the grounds that the Court could only consider "any question of law material to the determination": "This Court… is confined to looking to see whether the Tribunal erred in some manner in relation to the facts and material which were before the Tribunal. It is obvious that material not put to the Tribunal could not be used to identify an error of law on the part of the Tribunal." and "It is inappropriate for new material to be presented to this Court which could not in any way have affected the decision of the Tribunal below. It is of course open to an applicant to present such new material to the Secretary of State once the appellate process relating to the earlier decision has been exhausted; and I do not doubt that the Secretary of State would take into account material such as that from Dr Manley, as an expert in the relevant field."

Jain (Asylum Seekers, Homosexuality, Persecution) India [2000] UKIAT 00579
8 Jan 2000 IAT	Immigration
	[ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Quaquah
20 Jan 2000 QBD	Administrative, Immigration	Casemap 1 Cites
	An asylum seeker had been wrongly accused of riot and sought to sue for damages for malicious prosecution. The Home Secretary, a possible defendant in that action decided to expel the failed asylum seeker. Such an action was in breach of the principle of equality of arms enshrined in the treaty, and deprived the applicant of any opportunity to prepare and present his case. The Secretary should have considered these elements before ordering the deportation.
	Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969) - Civil Procedure Rules Rule 1.1(2)(a)

Nalliah Karanakaran -v- Secretary of State For The Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11; [2000] 2 All ER 449
25 Jan 2000 CA	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where the applicant for asylum could show that members of his family had been killed or persecuted by the authorities, the level of proof required that he would be under threat was not the normal civil standard of proof, but that of a reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution, and not the usual civil balance of probabilities. The same standard of proof should apply when considering whether internal relocation or flight was a reasonable alternative for the applicant. The issues for a decision-maker are questions not of hard fact but of evaluation. The person considering an applicant's claim for asylum must reach his decision by making an assessment in the light of all the available material in the case.
	[ Bailii ]

Regina (Chaudhry) -v- Special Adjudicator and Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWHC Admin 62
26 Jan 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut [2000] EWCA Civ 22; [2001] 1 All ER 719
28 Jan 2000 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Schiemann And Lord Justice Thorpe	Immigration, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in such matters. Where the Home Secretary reviewed the decision before it got to the High Court, that court must look at the latest decision, but in the Court of Appeal, the facts had to be examined as at the date of the High Court decision. Despite the wealth of material to show that grave human rights abuses still occur in Turkey, the court was unable to hold that the Secretary of State was bound to find the risk of this particular applicant being ill-treated to be a real one. Clearly there exists a conflict of opinion as to the degree of risk faced generally by returnees to Turkey, but the decision was not irrational.
	European Convention on Human Rights 3
	Link[s] omitted

Regina –v- Secretary of State ex parte Turgat Unreported, 28 January 2000
28 Jan 2000 CA Simon Brown LJ	Administrative, Immigration, Human Rights

Mahmood, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWHC Admin 632
2 Feb 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

R -v- Eyck; R -v- Hadakoglu
3 Feb 2000 CACD	Crime, Immigration
	The offence of being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for illegal entry of aliens into the United Kingdom was committed if the constituents of the offence were shown. That did not necessitate the actual bringing of someone into the UK. Here the defendant had driven a van onto a ferry bound for Dover when illegal immigrants were discovered inside. The offence was complete.
	Immigration Act 1971 25 (1) (a)

Regina -v- Eyck; R -v- Hadakoglu
8 Feb 2000 CACD	Crime, Immigration
	The offence of being knowingly concerned in making arrangements for illegal entry of aliens into the United Kingdom was committed if the constituents of the offence were shown. That did not necessitate the actual bringing of someone into the UK. Here the defendant had driven a van onto a ferry bound for Dover when illegal immigrants were discovered inside. The offence was complete.
	Immigration Act 1971 25 (1) (a)

Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Janet Wanyoike HC Admin 288
10 Feb 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Special Adjudicator of Immigration Appellate Authority ex parte Hasan Akdogan [2000] EWHC Admin 289
11 Feb 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

R and Secretary of State for Home Department and Immigration Appeal Tribunal -v- ex parte Lou Bahaman Bogou [2000] EWHC Admin 292
15 Feb 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Starred Haddad (Paragraph 340 of Hc 395, Co-Operation) (Algeria) [2000] UKIAT 00008
15 Feb 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Dupovac -v- Secretary of State for the Home Office
16 Feb 2000 CA	Immigration
	An asylum seeker awaiting the determination of an appeal who left the UK, was to be deemed by the Act to have abandoned the appeal. There was no part of the wording which allowed the court to differentiate between several classes of applicant. Since the Secretary could conclude that an appeal had been abandoned for any reason, the words could only mean that leaving the UK was determinative of abandonment.

Starred Ahmed (Restriction of Submissions) (Pakistan) [2000] UKIAT 00002
25 Feb 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

TI -v- United Kingdom [2000] INLR 211; [2000] ECHR 705
7 Mar 2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Dublin II Regulation did not absolve the United Kingdom from responsibility to ensure that a decision to expel an asylum seeker to another Member State did not expose him, at one remove, to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. "In the present case, the applicant is threatened with removal to Germany, where a deportation order was previously issued to remove him to Sri Lanka. It is accepted by all parties that the applicant is not, as such, threatened with any treatment contrary to Article 3 in Germany. His removal to Germany is however one link in a possible chain of events which might result in his return to Sri Lanka where it is alleged that he would face the real risk of such treatment. The Court finds that the indirect removal in this case to an intermediary country, which is also a Contracting State, does not affect the responsibility of the United Kingdom to ensure that the applicant is not, as a result of its decision to expel, exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Nor can the United Kingdom rely automatically in that context on the arrangements made in the Dublin Convention concerning the attribution of responsibility between European countries for deciding asylum claims. Where States establish international agreements, to pursue co-operation in certain fields of activities, there may be implications for the protection of fundamental rights. It would be incompatible with the purpose and object of the Convention if Contracting States were thereby absolved from their responsibility under the Convention in relation to the field of activity covered by such attribution (see e.g. Waite and Kennedy v Germany judgment of 18 February 1999, Reports 1999, § 67). The Court notes the comments of the UNHCR that, while the Dublin Convention may pursue laudable objectives, its effectiveness may be undermined in practice by the differing approaches adopted by Contracting States to the scope of protection offered."
	Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Wanyoike
10 Mar 2000 QBD	Immigration
	A chairman of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal had refused to allow an appeal against an earlier order. He then discovered that certain information had not been made available to him. He re-opened his decision, but came to the same conclusion. The applicant sought to review that decision, on the grounds that an expectation had been created that he would be granted leave to appeal. His original decision had been a determination, and so was not open to such a review, or reconsideration.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Asif
14 Mar 2000 QBD	Immigration
	When an applicant for asylum could only base his claim of a connection with this country by demonstrating a history of financial support provided by his family from this country, it was not irrational or unreasonable for the Home Secretary to deem such connection insufficient.

Nisar Ahmed for Judicial Review of A Decision of an Immigration Officer To Refuse the Petitioner Leave To Enter the United Kingdom [2000] ScotCS 65
14 Mar 2000 OHCS Lord Eassie	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Gurjit Singh for Judicial Review of A Determination of (I) A Special Adjudicator for (Ii) the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 64
14 Mar 2000 OHCS Lord Nimmo Smith	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Anderson, Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi
22 Mar 2000 QBD	Immigration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There is no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against either a decision of an adjudicator to make or one to refuse to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State when he was himself refusing an appeal. Nor is such a decision subject to judicial review. This practice, unlike that on granting an appeal, was an extra statutory concession, and it could not be a determination of any question in issue under the appeal to the adjudicator.
	Immigration Act 1971 20

Mohammed Akhtar [2000] ScotCS 79
23 Mar 2000 SCS	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Adermi Oladele Adewole and Special Adjudicator -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWHC Admin 309
27 Mar 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Saleem Ahmed for Judicial Review of Decisions of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Dated 10Th August 1997, 29Th January 1998 and 7Th May 199 [2000] ScotCS 85
28 Mar 2000 SCS Lord Nimmo Smith	Scotland, Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Starred Sepet & Bulbul (Conscientious Objection: Convention Reason?) (Turkey) [2000] UKIAT 00003
7 Apr 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Kuijer -v- Council of the European Union Case T-188/98
14 Apr 2000 ECJ	European, Immigration, Administrative
	An applicant sought access to documents of the Council of the European Union relating to asylum. The decision of the Council to refuse access to the documents was on the grounds that the material was politically sensitive, and disclosure would be against the public interest. The council failed however to consider the status of the separate documents separately, and so the decision was invalid. The default position was that Council documents should be made available, and the ability to withhold related to individual documents.
	Council Decision 93/731/EC on Public Access to Council documents

Kumar, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC 451 (Admin)
17 Apr 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Kaba -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Case C-356/98
19 Apr 2000 ECJ	Immigration, European
	UK rules required that a wife of a migrant European worker must be resident for four years before applying for indefinite leave to remain, but a spouse of a person settled in the UK need only be resident for one year. There was no discrimination contrary to European Law which prevented rules restricting the free movement of workers. The right sought by the application went beyond the rights protected by the EU Treaty. The residential rights of migrant workers are not unconditional.
	Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for community workers, article 7(2) - ECTreaty Article 234

Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Dzhygun (Ukraine) [2000] UKIAT 00TH00728
17 May 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Carcabuk -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Unreported, 18 May 2000
18 May 2000 IAT Collins J	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	Collins J considered the circumstances under which a party could withdraw a concession previously given. Collins J said: "It is in our judgment important to identify the precise nature of any so-called concession. If it is of fact…the adjudicator should not go behind it. Accordingly, if facts are agreed, the adjudicator should accept whatever is agreed. Equally, if a concession is clearly made by a HOPO that an appellant is telling the truth either generally or on specific matters, the adjudicator may raise with the HOPO his doubts whether the concession as appropriate but, if it is maintained, he should accept it. But there is all the difference in the world between a concession and a failure to challenge. The former will bind the adjudicator, the latter will not. Furthermore, any concession can be withdrawn so that, for example, the case before the Tribunal can be presented in a different way to that before the adjudicator. It is open to a HOPO to withdraw a concession made before an adjudicator before the hearing is concluded, but the appellant must be given a proper opportunity to deal with the new case against him and unless there is good reason for the withdrawal such as the discovery of fresh material we doubt that the adjudicator should permit any adjournment which such withdrawal would be likely to necessitate . . We can summarise the position as follows:- . . (3) If the HOPO wishes to withdraw any concession made: in a refusal letter or explanatory statement, he must inform the appellant or his advisor as soon as possible and it will be for the adjudicator to decide if an application for an adjournment to enable the new case to be met is made, whether to grant it. If he does not, the concession will stand . . (6) A concession can be withdrawn but, if a HOPO seeks to do this, the adjudicator must be satisfied that the appellant will not be prejudiced if the hearing continues and should only allow an adjournment if persuaded that there was good reason to have made and to withdraw the concession"

B -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 158; [2000] Imm AR 478; [2000] INLR 361; [2000] 2 CMLR 1086
18 May 2000 CA Simon Brown, Ward, Sedley LJJ	Immigration, Human Rights, European	1 Cites
	The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the respondent had failed to take account of the length of time he had been here and, given the non-continuation of contact with his wife and children, the unlikelihood of his re-offending. Held: The decision needed to be proportionate under two provisions, European and Human Rights law. European law guaranteed freedom of movement within the EU for workers, subject to limitations on public policy grounds, which included the personal conduct of the individual, but "Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for the taking of such measures" In any event, in the imposition of limitations on the right of free movement of EU nationals, member states must respect any relevant provision of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8 - Immigration Act 1971 3(5) - Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9
	Link[s] omitted

The Secretary Of State For The Home Department -v- Shafiq Ur Rehman [2000] EWCA Civ 168
23 May 2000 CA	Immigration	1 Cites 1 Citers
	An intention to promote terrorist activity was sufficient to found an order for deportation even though the terrorism may not be directed at any person or property in the UK. Such activity is capable of constituting a threat to national security. The concept of national security is a protean one, and any activity which could directly or indirectly threaten the UK's condemnation and control of terrorism was capable of being a threat to such national security.
	Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Savas C-37/98; [2000] ECR 1-2927; [2000] EUECJ C-37/98
23 May 2000 ECJ	Immigration, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	A convention between the European Union and Turkey had direct effect under one article, but was not sufficiently detailed in other provisions to give a right to an individual to enforce its provisions. The article required Turkish nationals not to be treated worse than EU nationals, but did not itself confer a right of residence. Europa EEC-Turkey Association - Restrictions on freedom of establishment and right of residence - Article 13 of the Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional Protocol - Direct effect - Scope - Turkish national unlawfully present in the host Member State.
	Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement
	[ Europa ] - [ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Shen, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC Admin 452
25 May 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Deniz Mersin [2000] EWHC Admin 348; [2000] INLR 511
25 May 2000 Admn Elias J	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Claimant who had established his refugee status. Held: Where a person has established a right, or something akin to a right, to a status or a benefit, it is incumbent on the relevant authority to grant the status or benefit without unreasonable delay.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- an Immigration Officer ex parte John Xuereb [2000] EWHC Admin 352
26 May 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Berhe
26 May 2000 CA	Immigration
	An immigration appeal tribunal which delivered its decision out of time had the power under the rules to grant to itself an extension of time to allow the judgment to be delivered. It was not essential that reasons be given for such an extension, nor that the parties be given an opportunity to be heard as to such an extension. There were powerful reasons for expecting a tribunal normally to give such reasons, but their absence did not make the decision a nullity.
	Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 2070

Yelocagi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department
31 May 2000 CA	Immigration
	Even though the parties to an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had agreed that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for a re-hearing, where the Appeal Tribunal found that there was enough in the original decision to allow them to determine the appeal without remitting it, they had a duty to decide the appeal and not to remit it.
	Asylum (Appeals) Procedure Rules 1993 No 1661, 35

Popatiaa, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWHC 556 (QB)
7 Jun 2000 QBD Sullivan J	Immigration
	Applications by overstayers.
	[ Bailii ]

Smith -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Liberia) [2000] UKIAT 00TH02130
9 Jun 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Asifa Saleem -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 186; [2001] 1 WLR 443
13 Jun 2000 CA Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Hale	Judicial Review, Immigration, Human Rights	1 Citers
	A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator's determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power to make rules, but the receipt of the determination was fundamental to the exercise of the rights under the Act. "There is an analogy here with the principles established under Article 6 of the ECHR. Immigration and asylum cases have not been held by the ECHR to be 'the determination of his civil rights and obligations' for the purpose of Article 6. Furthermore, Article 6 does not guarantee a right of appeal. But if the State establishes such a right it must ensure that people within its jurisdiction enjoy the fundamental guarantees in Article 6". The right of appeal to an independent appellate body was a fundamental or basic right akin to the right of unimpeded access to a court, an infringement of which must be either expressly authorised by or arise by necessary implication from an Act of Parliament.
	Immigration Act 1971 - Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 2070 - European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Xuereb
14 Jun 2000 QBD	Health, Immigration
	The fact that an alien was detained under the Mental Health Acts did not mean that he could not be ordered to be removed and returned to his own country. The power given to the Secretary of State was discretionary, and though the treatment he might receive was of a lower standard, it was not an unreasonable exercise of the discretion. He also retained the powers under the earlier act and could rely upon those powers. The later Act was not an exhaustive statement of his powers.
	Mental Health Act 1983 86 - Immigration Act 1971 SCh 2

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Shefki Gashi and Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Artan Gjoka [2000] EWHC Admin 356
15 Jun 2000 Admn	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	When dealing with the argument that there had been delay in dealing with the applications which amounted to a breach of the requirement of the Dublin Convention that the application should be dealt with expeditiously: "I have no doubt that these arguments must be rejected. While naturally the Dublin Convention has regard to the need for those seeking asylum to know their fate as soon as is reasonably possible, it is concerned with the allocation of responsibility for considering claims and caring for refugees. .. . the ratification by the government of a Treaty may create a legitimate expectation that its terms will be applied in dealing with an individual affected by it. That will only be if there is nothing else to show how the Government will act and no statement of policy. Here the respondent has quite clearly indicated that he intends to make use of his powers under s. 2 of the 1996 Act and to apply the Dublin Convention accordingly. In any event, I cannot accept that an individual can have any rights or expectations under the Dublin Convention since it is concerned not to confer benefits on the individual but to ascertain which state should be responsible for dealing with his claim. It may confer benefits on him indirectly in as much as he will not be passed from one state to another and back again and thus ascertaining that responsibility will take less time than if there was no Dublin Convention."
	Link[s] omitted

Srimanoharan -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department
29 Jun 2000 CA	Immigration
	It was not proper for counsel to raise at an appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, a point which had not been argued at the appeal tribunal with a suggestion that the case be remitted to the tribunal for a re-hearing. The argument that the applicant properly feared prosecution rather than persecution had not been developed, and it was not for the Appeal Tribunal itself to address a point which had not been raised before it.
	Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 9

Starred N -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nigeria) [2001] UKIAT 00TH2345
3 Jul 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Mapere, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWHC 633 (Admin); [2001] Imm AR 89
3 Jul 2000 Admn Sulivan J	Immigration, Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	To establish a legitimate expectation, the assurances relied on should be assurances that have been given by the decision-maker: "it would be wrong in principle for courts to rule that a decision-maker's discretion should be limited by an assurance given by some other person".
	Link[s] omitted

Horvath -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHL 37; [2000] 3 WLR 379; [2000] 3 All ER 577; [2001] 1 AC 489
7 Jul 2000 HL Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough	Immigration, Human Rights	1 Cites 1 Citers
	When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such persecution, and the level of protection it was prepared to offer. The failure of state protection is central to the whole system. Persecution is best defined as the sustained or systemic failure of state protection in relation to one of the core entitlements which has been recognized by the international community. The obligation to afford refugee status arises only if the person’s own state is unable or unwilling to discharge its own duty to protect its own nationals. It follows that to satisfy the fear test in a non-state agent case, the applicant must show that the persecution which he fears consists of acts of violence or ill treatment against which the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection.
	Geneva Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951) (Cmd 9171)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Yousaf Same -v- Same, Ex parte Jamil [1999] EWHC Admin 776
11 Jul 2000 CA	Immigration
	A failure to appear at an earlier appeal which was through no fault of the appellant, should not be used by the Secretary as an excuse to defeat an appeal under the section. The Secretary of State should not treat the section as a safety net or fall back. It was in fact a secondary appeal, and its provisions should not be defeated by a merely technical defect.
	Immigration Act 1971 s 20 - Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 Sch 2
	Link[s] omitted

Jabari -v- Turkey 40035/98; (2000) 9 BHRC 1; [2000] ECHR 368; [2000] ECHR 369; [2001] INLR 136
11 Jul 2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	A "rigorous scrutiny" was to be conducted of a claim that an individual's deportation to a third country would expose him to treatment prohibited by Article 3, before it could be rejected. Held: "If the State is to avoid breach of Article 3 by removal of an individual to another territory where he might be ill treated or whence he might be sent elsewhere and ill treated there, the authorities of the first State plainly have to apprise themselves of the relevant law and practice of the place to which the removal will be effected. Otherwise they cannot know whether their actions will violate the ECHR or not. This is not a distinct, separate or adjectival duty, but a necessary incident of the substantive obligation to fulfil Article 3. It is underlined by the need of rigorous scrutiny where an individual claims that expulsion will expose him to Article 3 ill treatment."
	European Convention on Human Rights 3
	Link[s] omitted

Harjinder Singh for Judicial Review of A Determination of A Special Adjudicator and of A Determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
12 Jul 2000 SCS Lord Nimmo Smith	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Harjinder Singh for Judicial Review of a Determination of a Special Adjudicator and of a Determination of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 193
12 Jul 2000 SCS	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Jasvir Singh Against the Final Determination By the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 194
12 Jul 2000 SCS	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department, a Special Adjudicator ex parte Mohammed Imran Amin [2000] EWHC Admin 371
17 Jul 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Popatia and Another
18 Jul 2000 QBD	Immigration
	Where a notice of intention to deport had been issued, but had not come to the attention of the proposed deportee, this would not work to break the period of time after which the applicant could claim a 14 year residence concession. Though the procedures had been lawful at the time, the legitimate expectation created by the non-service must take precedence.

Syed Nadeem Hussain Shah Against Decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] ScotCS 207
20 Jul 2000 SCS	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Syed Nadeem Hussain Shah Against Decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
20 Jul 2000 SCS Lord Milligan	Scotland, Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Al Fayed, (Regina On The Application of) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department (No. 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 523
26 Jul 2000 CA Nourse V P, Kennedy, Rix LJJ	Immigration
	The claimant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision to allow his naturalisation as a British citizen.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Khatib-Shahidi
3 Aug 2000 CA	Immigration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There is no appeal from the decision of an adjudicator not to recommend that there existed sufficient compassionate grounds for granting exceptional leave to remain in the UK in the absence of any statutory grounds for such a recommendation. A failure to make a recommendation in this situation is not open to judicial review.
	Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 (1984 N0 2041) 6

Starred Fadil Dyli (Protection, Unmik, Arif, Ifa, Art1D) (Kosovo) Cg [2000] UKIAT 00001
30 Aug 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Nmaju and Others -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal
6 Sep 2000 CA	Immigration
	Where a child seeks indefinite leave to remain in the UK, he must show that there is one parent with sole responsibility for his upbringing. That requirement could not be read to impose any requirement that that parent should have had such responsibility for any length of time, and could be satisfied where the care had been exercised only for a short time. The element of what constituted sole responsibility was not merely a question of legal control, but also incorporates questions as to the actual extent of care given.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department
7 Sep 2000 QBD	Immigration, Torts - Other
	A finding that the applicant was an illegal immigrant had been subject to an application for judicial review on the basis that there had been insufficient evidence of an intent to deceive. The review had been refused because of the applicant's delay. The applicant later sought to claim habeas corpus. It was held that this application was in effect merely a repetition of the earlier rejected application, and was an abuse of process. Although the review application had been refused for delay, the court had considered and rejected the merits of the application.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Fayed
7 Sep 2000 CA	Immigration, Judicial Review, Media
	A newspaper report written by a journalist quoting an unnamed if reliable source as to words spoken by the Secretary of State was insufficient to found the serious allegation that the Secretary had prejudged the applicant's application for naturalisation. The report suffered three defects. The source was unnamed, the reporter was himself quoting a party who had not heard the words himself, and the context in which the words had been spoken was unclear. Even had they been established, the words alleged would be insufficient to support the alleged pre-judgement.

Regina -v- Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha [2000] 1 WLR 2539; [2000] EWCA Civ 201; Times, 18 July 2000
7 Sep 2000 CA Simon Brown LJ, Hale LJ	Local Government, Immigration, Benefits	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority. It was held that the refusals were unlawful. Where circumstances of need arose over and above needs arising from lack of accommodation and funds, then he qualified for assistance irrespective of his immigration status. That status was a matter to be assessed by the Secretary of State, and not by local authorities. The use of the word 'solely' in the new section 21(1A) left the local authority with a responsibility for those whose need for care and attention was attributable to a combination of factors, and not simply to destitution and its effects. If the applicant's need for more care and attention was "to any extent made more acute by some circumstance other than the mere lack of accommodation and funds" e.g. because she is old, ill or disabled, then she is not excluded by section 21(1A).
	National Assistance Act 1948 21(1A)
	Link[s] omitted

Revenko -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department
8 Sep 2000 CA	Immigration
	A stateless asylum applicant who was also unable to return to his previous country of habitual residence, did not become a refugee under the Convention until he displayed a well founded fear of persecution. It was not enough to be unable to return to his former country of residence. The words of the convention clearly made the condition applicable throughout each term of the clause.
	Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs -v- Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 55
1 Oct 2000 Gummow J	Commonwealth, Human Rights, Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	(High Court of Australia) The court recognised a right in sovereign states to give refuge to aliens fleeing from foreign persecution and to refuse to surrender such persons to the authorities of their home states: "there have been attempts which it is unnecessary to recount here to broaden the scope of the Convention itself by a Draft United Nations Convention on Territorial Asylum but these collapsed more than twenty years ago."

Starred Pardeepan (Pre-2000 Decision: Human Rights?) (Sri Lanka) [2000] UKIAT 00006
6 Oct 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina on the Application of Ondelio Lisungi -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC Admin 401
12 Oct 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Omoruyi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 258
12 Oct 2000 CA	Immigration
	Where a person claimed asylum on the basis that he had a well founded fear of persecution, the potential acts of the persecutor he feared must be shown to have some connection with a reason under the Convention. Discrimination against the claimant for an unconnected purpose was not sufficient to found a claim. Here the claimant feared persecution by cult members if he returned home for refusing to surrender his father's body. In reality their animosity arose from that refusal and was not aimed at his own religious beliefs.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Ullah
17 Oct 2000 QBD	Immigration, Administrative
	The fact that a claimant had acquired British citizenship in one way did not take away his right in addition to apply for naturalisation arising from his rights by descent. The latter process would create additional rights for his own children, and he had the right to apply. There was nothing in the legislation to suggest that the two alternatives were mutually exclusive, and the Home Office's practice to the contrary was unlawful.
	British Nationality Act 1981 6

Tientchu, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWCA Civ 385
18 Oct 2000 CA	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Starred Mnm (Surendran Guidelines for Adjudicators) (Kenya) [2000] UKIAT 00005
31 Oct 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regiona -v- Special Adjudicator ex parte Gabi Ilarion Ragman [2000] EWHC Admin 411
1 Nov 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Yiadom Case C-357/98
16 Nov 2000 ECJ	Immigration, European
	Where a citizen of a member state had been granted temporary admission, pending a final decision on whether she should be admitted or expelled, that decision was not one which could be classified as a 'decision concerning entry,' for the purposes of the directive, and by legal fiction the person was deemed to be out of the country, and accordingly was entitled to the procedural safeguards given by Article 9.
	ECTreaty Article 234 - Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals - Immigration Act 1971 11(1)

Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bashir Lal [2000] EWHC Admin 420
20 Nov 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fadli [2000] EWCA Civ 297
23 Nov 2000 CA	Immigration
	A claim for political asylum could not be founded on the basis that the applicant would face the alternatives of imprisonment for refusing conscription, or being conscripted and facing attack from anti-government terrorists. The position of former soldiers might be different, since they might cease to have the protection allowed to a serving soldier. In effect the applicant sought a surrogate protection from conflict. There appears no distinction to be made under the Convention between soldiers engaged on warlike activities against an external force, and those engaged fighting terrorists.
	Link[s] omitted

Starred Gomez (Non-State Actors: Acero-Garces Disapproved) (Colombia) [2000] UKIAT 00007
24 Nov 2000 IAT	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte R
29 Nov 2000 QBD	Immigration, Human Rights
	An applicant for asylum had had his case rejected and was separated from his family whose similar application had not yet been finally determined, but he remained in close contact with them. He was imprisoned, and on his release ordered to be deported to Argentina. He complained, successfully that the effect would be to destroy any chance of family life. It was held that the effect of deporting him without waiting for the result of his wife's application was disproportionate in the effect it would have on his family life. No order was made on an undertaking from the Home Secretary to await that decision.
	European Convention on Human Rights

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Roszkowski
29 Nov 2000 QBD	Immigration
	Racial harassment consisting of behaviour not condoned by the state could not amount to torture. Differences in the apparent definitions of torture did not mean that a lower standard applied. Racist behaviour not condoned by the state, and which in this case did no extend beyond discrimination and harassment did not amount to torture. The torture referred to in the paragraph must relate to the substantive claim for asylum,and not to something extraneous. The torture must be either by the state or, if by non-agents then the state must be shown to have refused or been incapable of providing protection.
	International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984

X -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 3026
7 Dec 2000 CA	Immigration, Health, Human Rights
	The court considered the effect of an immigrant's mental illness on the Home Secretary's powers to refuse to grant him exceptional leave to enter or remain.
	Immigration Act 1971 - Mental Health Act 1983 - Human Rights Act 1998
	[ Bailii ]

X -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 311
7 Dec 2000 CA Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey, And Sir Swinton Thomas	Immigration, Health, Human Rights
	The applicant applied for asylum, but suffered from schizophrenia. He had been refused entry and detained, and then his detention was transferred to a mental hospital by order of the Home Secretary, with a view to his return for treatment in Malta. The applicant alleged that the Secretary had no power to so order without going first to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Held: the Secretary's duties were not solely to look to the applicant's bests interests, but also to immigration control. Nevertheless it was argued that to move a person under treatment could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. In this case that argument failed. It could not be assumed that he would not receive proper health care in Malta. It was also argued that once subject to the Mental Health Act, he could only be dealt with under that Act. Parliament had not circumscribed the Home Secretary's Immigration Act powers, and those remained in effect. Appeal refused.
	Immigration Act 1971 2(1)(b), 86(2) - Mental Health Act 1983 47, 86
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood [2001] 1 WLR 840; [2000] All ER (D) 2191; [2000] EWCA Civ 315; [2001] HRLR 14; [2001] Fam Law 257; [2001] Imm AR 229; [2001] 1 FLR 756; [2001] UKHRR 307; (2001) 3 LGLR 23; [2001] ACD 38; [2001] 2 FCR 63; [2001] INLR 1
8 Dec 2000 CA The Master of The Rolls, Lord Justice May And Lord Justice Laws	Administrative, Human Rights, Immigration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born. Held: Only exceptionally should an applicant for leave to remain be able to escape the requirement under the rules for entry clearance to be obtained abroad by having his substantive application to remain—whether under the rules or under article 8—determined here. Removal of one family member to his country of origin would not infringe article 8 if there are "no insurmountable obstacles" to the other members also living there. In reviewing an administrative decision made before the Act came into effect, but taking effect after, the court was not to judge the decision as if the Act had been in place. Nevertheless, when a public law decision affected fundamental rights, the court should require the decision to demonstrate a non-interference with the appellant's human rights, or that there was a substantial justification for allowing the interference. The role of the court remained merely supervisory. The greater the interference in the rights, the greater would be the justification required. Different articles allowed interference to different extents or none. The court must keep a "principled distance" between the decision-maker's decision on the merits and the court's adjudication. "When anxiously scrutinising an executive decision that interferes with human rights, the court will ask the question, applying an objective test, whether the decision-maker could reasonably have concluded that the interference was necessary to achieve one or more of the legitimate aims recognised by the Convention. When considering the test of necessity in the relevant context, the court must take into account the European jurisprudence in accordance with section 2 of the 1998 Act." Even where the courts are in as good a position as the Secretary of State to decide an issue which engages Convention rights, they must not do so as if they were his surrogate.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

Regina on Application of Hasan Kaymak -v- Secretary of State for Home Department; Immigration Appeallate Authority and Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2000] EWHC Admin 431
13 Dec 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Isiko; Susan and Shemy Isiko [2000] EWCA Civ 346
20 Dec 2000 CA	Immigration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Massaquoi -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 345
20 Dec 2000 CA	Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Henry Holub and Eva Holub -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 343; [2001] 1 WLR 1359; [2001] ELR 401; [2001] Imm AR 282; [2001] INLR 219
20 Dec 2000 CA Schiemann, Tuckey LJJ, Sir Swinton Thomas	Human Rights, Education, Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimants appealed against a refusal of their request for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to grant them exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. If returned to Poland the daughter of the family would face educational difficulties. Held: The case presented at first instance had been factually incorrect. Everyone is entitled to be educated to a minimum standard: if the right was to have any content it should at least encompass the provision of an effective education.
	European Convention on Human Rights A2P1
	Link[s] omitted

Noune -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department
20 Dec 2000 CA	Immigration
	Where a conscientious civil servant was threatened by insurgents who sought to persuade her to use her position to their advantage, but that civil servants could not expected to receive the protection of her estate from such insurgents, the Convention would give her protection as a refugee for asylum. The position of government employees in such a situation may be quite different to that of an ordinary employee.
	Geneva Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951) (Cmd 9171)

Regina -v- The Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Allan Alexander Samaroo [2000] EWHC Admin 435
20 Dec 2000 Admn Thomas J	Immigration, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur [2001] 1 All ER 593; [2001] 2 WLR 143; [2000] UKHL 67; [2001] 2 AC 477
20 Dec 2000 HL	International, Immigration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore an asylum seeker returned to those countries would in turn face return to his country of origin. Accordingly neither France and Germany was a safe country for return in these circumstances. There can be only one correct interpretation of the treaty, and cases of dispute, should be dealt with by the International Court of Justice under article 38. In the absence of such a decision, national courts must make their decisions, but do so untrammelled by national legal culture. No criticism was intended of interpretations adopted in good faith by Germany and by France.
	Geneva Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951) (Cmd 9171)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina on Application of Altin Vallaj -v- A Special Adjudicator [2000] EWHC Admin 438
21 Dec 2000 Admn	Immigration
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sheik
22 Dec 2000 CA	Immigration, Torts - Other
	The applicant had been detained following an administrative decision that he should detained as an illegal immigrant. At law, he had a choice between an application for habeas corpus, where it had to be shown that each day's detention was justified, and proceeding by way of judicial review of the decision which led to his detention. In review proceedings he must act quickly, or it might be refused. After failing on the review application, and after three years he challenged his detention under habeas corpus. Such a second application was an abuse of process.