The UK Supreme Court has found the government’s “deport now, appeal later” policy is in breach of human rights law. Here is a detailed analysis.
The Home Secretary misused her powers to try and keep Mr Ibori in detention, rather than focusing on deporting him to Nigeria, the High Court has found.
“Deport now, appeal later” or start again? Guidance on fresh claims and s.94B certifications in immigration judicial reviews
Home Office powers to cut the number of appeals against immigration refusals have enabled a boom in judicial reviews and fresh claims. That trend is likely to continue following new guidance from the Upper Tribunal.
There is a growing judicial consensus that the demanding test for serious offenders to resist deportation on grounds of family life ought to be applied with some flexibility.
Severe delays are not uncommon in immigration and asylum cases, as many applicants discover to their dismay. Here, Home Office inertia was a key reason why a woman’s deportation became unlawful.
The law on automatic removal of “foreign criminals” from the UK imposes no duty on Secretary of State to keep making deportation orders after a revocation decision.
The Court of Appeal has asserted the relevance of the Immigration Rules in Article 8 appeals against deportation orders, taking a fine tooth-comb to Tribunal decisions that don’t attach sufficient weight to the Rules.
Whether deportation of a “foreign criminal” infringes a person’s right to family and private life in the UK cannot be assessed only through the prism of the Immigration Rules. However, Judges must give considerable weight to the Rules, according to the Supreme Court cases of Ali and Makhlouf.
Non-UK nationals who commit serious criminal offences are subject to automatic deportation. The Secretary of State must make a deportation order […]