|
Khan, R (On the Application Of) v SSHD & Anor [2011] EWHC 2763 (Admin) (06 October 2011)
These were four test cases which the High Court listed to consider the issue of whether judicial review was available to appellants against decisions of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. A claimant before the High Court had to show that following Cart v Upper TribunalPR (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 988.
Suphachaikosol, R (on the application of) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 1817 (Admin) (16 June 2010)
This case was a renewed application for leave to apply for judicial review. The court was asked to consider the position of an applicant who had made an application to the UKBA for leave, when they have no substantive right to remain in the UK at the date of application, and the question as to whether the UKBA ought to either grant that person an in-country right of appeal or issue removal directions which would trigger an in-country right of appeal.
The court found there was no legal right to expect a right of appeal to be granted by any means. An applicant had to wait until the UKBA decided to issue removal. Though the court acknowledged it left an applicant in limbo and to some extent, it encouraged people to remain in the country illegally; the court could not be persuaded the UKBA must do as suggested by the claimant. The case of TE (Eritrea) [2009] EWCA Civ 174 was distinguished.
JO (Uganda) and JT (Ivory Coast) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 10
The relevance of Maslov v Austria 1638/03 [2008] ECHR 546 (23 June 2008) in administrative removal and deportation cases and considerations in accordance with Article 8 appeals.
SA (Article 8 - burden of proof - Algeria) [2008] UKAIT 00054
Tribunal's ruling on the burden of proof in Article 8 human rights appeals. This case has subsequently been to the Court of Appeal on our application and is now to be reconsidered de novo by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
SA (Eritrea) v SSHD 2008, CA, unreported
Leave to appeal regarding Article 8 in deportation cases and any third party rights to be considered.
The Queen on the Application of Ji HOU v SSHD 2008, HCJ (Admin), unreported
Consideration of evidence in asylum claim and whether there was Wednesbury unreasonableness on the part of the Secretary of State in failing to consider evidence as part of a fresh claim.
|