Get RSS feed
Immigration cases
Secretary of State for the Home Department v SK (Sri Lanka) [2012] EWCA Civ 16 (19 January 2012) Thu January 19
TM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 9 (18 January 2012) Wed January 18
Naved (Student - fairness - notice of points) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 14 (IAC) (13 January 2012) Fri January 13
UKBA news
New application form and guidance for Bulgarian and Romanian applications Mon January 16
The UK Border Agency has published a new version of Form BR3, which is used to apply for an accessio
Update for Tier 4 sponsors: educational oversight and other changes Tue January 10
An update for Tier 4 sponsors about educational oversight and information about changes coming into
Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) - new procedure for Arts Council England endorsement Tue January 3
From today, applicants under Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) of the points-based system must follow a ne
Taiwan is added to the Tier 5 youth mobility scheme Thu December 22
From 1 January 2012, Taiwan will join the list of countries and territories that participate in the
London 2012 Games spectators: visa applications open from 1 January 2012 Tue December 20
From 1 January 2012 you can apply for visitor visas to come to the UK to watch the Games.
Weight to be given to offending
In the new case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v HK (Turkey) [2010] EWCA Civ 583 the Home Office failed in its attempt to overturn an allowed appeal against deportation.
The Home Office argument was that the tribunal,
by considering the circumstances surrounding the committal of the offence, was impermissibly trespassing on the nature and seriousness of the offence, which was a matter for the Secretary of State
The Court also rejected the Home Office contention that there was no family life between the adult offender and his parents as there were no emotional ties beyond the normal. At paragraph 16 Sir Scott Baker finds as follows:
"Scrutinising the relevant facts, as one is obliged to do, it is apparent that the respondent had lived in the same house as his parents since 1994. He reached his majority in September 2005 but continued to live at home. Undoubtedly he had family life while he was growing up and I would not regard it as suddenly cut off when he reached his majority."
In a concurring judgment Lord Justice Sedley comments that if anything the tribunal erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the fact that the appellant had been resident in the UK since the age of six, which was highly material.
