|Twenty-Six-Thousand Sign Petition Against London Shop Worker's Deportation
Thousands of people have signed an online petition to protest against the deportation of a popular London shop worker detained by immigration officers the day after article 50 was triggered who has lived in the UK for 26 years. Stojan Jankovic, 53, known as “Stoly”, who fled former Yugoslavia in 1991, was detained without warning on Thursday and told he could be deported as early as Tuesday.
A #savestoly campaign on Twitter has attracted huge support, including from Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker. A petition on the 38 Degrees website had been signed by almost 9,000 within 24 hours as Jankovic’s MP, Keir Starmer, wrote to the home secretary, Amber Rudd, to call for the deportation to be delayed by at least 14 days to allow time for a legal challenge.
Read more: Caroline Davies, Guardian, http://tiny.cc/54e9jy
The Shrinking Space for Human Rights Organisations
In recent years, I have noticed a clear trend of backsliding in several European countries in the area of freedom of association, particularly in respect of human rights organisations and defenders. The growing pressure and increased obstacles can take a variety of forms: legal and administrative restrictions; judicial harassment and sanctions, including criminal prosecution for failure to comply with new restrictive regulations; smear campaigns and orchestrated ostracism of independent groups; and threats, intimidation and even physical violence against their members. In some cases, the climate is so negative that it forces human rights work to the margins or even underground. Efforts to control, clampdowns on funding and requirements for pejorative self-labelling Since 2012, more than 60 countries across the globe have either passed or drafted laws restricting the activities of civil society organisations. Restrictive provisions have been enacted in various parts of Europe as well, posing ever-greater obstacles to the work of NGOs operating in the continent.
Read more: Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights
ILPA information Service: Latest Immigration Update And Information Sheets
ILPA's lastest immigration update (no.72) is now available on ILPA website at:
This update covers:
- Paposhvili v Belgium, ECHR: Human rights claims on medical grounds;
- UK Supreme Court decisions on rights to private and family life;
- Free ebook application guides for EU citizens by Colin Yeo, Free Movement;
- Home Office guidance and application form for additional asylum support;
- Home Office consultation on asylum support rates;
- Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules (HC1078) (in brief as this will be covered in the next update);
- Right to refugee status recognised for people resettled in the UK under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme and under the Vulnerable Children's Resettlement Scheme.
It is published together with new information sheets on:
We hope you find these useful.
With best wishes, Zoe
Legal Officer, Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA)
National Authorities May Refuse, Visas to Study tn Information Technology For Iranian Students
The national authorities may refuse, for reasons of public security, to grant to an Iranian national with a degree from a university subject to restrictive measures a visa for study in a sensitive field such as information technology security
While the national authorities enjoy a wide discretion as regards the existence of a threat to public security, the decision to refuse a visa must nevertheless state proper reasons
Judgment in Case C-544/15 - Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Country Policy and Information Note - Sri Lanka: Tamil Separatism
1.1 Basis of claim
1.1.1 Fear of persecution or serious harm by the Sri Lankan authorities due to the person’s actual or perceived political opinion based on support for or involvement with Tamil separatist groups.
1.2 Points to note
1.2.1 The focus of this note is on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). However, the guidance applies equally to involvement with other groups who advocate Tamil separatism.
Published on Refworld, 03/04/2017
Two Firms Face Charges Over Death of Man in UK Detention Centre
Two private firms will face criminal charges over the death of a man in a British immigration detention centre. Prince Fosu was found dead on the concrete floor of his cell in Harmondsworth, west London, on 30 October 2012. Fosu, 31, was originally from Ghana. He was booked on a flight to leave Britain on 5 November that year. The Crown Prosecution Service announced on Tuesday 04/04/2017, that GEO Group UK Ltd and Nestor Primecare Services Ltd would face prosecution under health and safety laws. GEO ran Harmondsworth at the time while Nestor was responsible for the healthcare of those detained there. Both companies are alleged to have breached section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, by failing to take reasonable care of health and safety. The maximum penalty on conviction is an unlimited fine.
Read more: Vikram Dodd, Guardian, http://tiny.cc/llabky
Have You Been Subject to a Search at the UK Border? It May Have Been Unlawful
When entering the UK the UK Border Force retains the right to search persons they deem suspicious or believe to be carrying restricted or prohibited items under section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA).
UK border officials may carry out this search on the basis of prior intelligence, or they may, after interacting with an individual, believe that there are grounds for a Search of Person (SOP). The officers conducting the searches are required to record the reasons they believe it was necessary to stop the passenger and subsequently search them. However, regularly records are not made, leaving them open to accusations of discrimination.
By law, any passengers required to submit to a SOP under section 164 must be informed of their rights. That is the right to appeal the search to either the officer conducting the search, an independent superior or to a Justice of the Peace. On the SOP record form (called BOR1412) there is information regarding the appeal rights of passengers being searched under Section 164 of CEMA. It is a prerequisite of a SOP that passengers sign this form to demonstrate that they have been informed of these rights.
However in a staggering 70% of cases the SOP record form is not signed by the passenger at all – this is a serious breach of legislative authority by the UK Border Force and a clear abuse of power. If you have been stopped at a UK Port of Entry and were subjected to a rub-down (also known as a pat down), strip or intimate (also known as cavity) search that came out negative and were not told that you had a right to appeal against the search, then you may be entitled to bring a claim for damages for an unlawful search.
Gabor Nagy: Duncan Lewis, http://tiny.cc/7zgaky
Ahmed and Others (Deprivation of Citizenship)  UKUT 118 (IAC)
(i) While the two fold duties enshrined in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 are imposed on the Secretary of State, the onus of making representations and providing relevant evidence relating to a child's best interests rests on the appropriate parental figure.
(ii) A failure to discharge this onus may well defeat any argument that there was a proactive duty of enquiry on the Secretary of State in a given context.
(iii) In deprivation of citizenship cases, section 55 issues arise at two stages: at the deprivation of citizen stage and at the later stage of proposed removal or deportation.
(iv) As the subject of national citizenship lies exclusively within the competence of Member States, EU law has no role to play in deprivation cases: G1 v SSHD  EWCA Civ 867 applied.
(v) The Secretary of State's deprivation of citizenship policy confers a wide margin of appreciation on the decision maker.
(vi) Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 does not apply to deprivation of citizenship decisions as such decisions are not made under the Immigration Acts.
(vii) There would be a considerable saving of human and financial resources with consequential reduced delay if deprivation of citizenship and deportation or removal decisions were to be made jointly.
1. This is the decision of the panel to which both members have contributed.
2. All of the Appellants are of Pakistani nationality and have acquired British citizenship by naturalisation. Their conjoined appeals have their origins in a series of decisions made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the " Secretary of State") proposing to deprive the Appellants of their British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The First-tier Tribunal (the " FtT") dismissed the Appellants' ensuing appeals. The Appellants appeal to the Upper Tribunal pursuant to my order granting permission to do so dated 05 August 2016.
78. None of the Appellants' grounds of appeal having been made out, we dismiss all appeals and affirm the decisions of the FtT.
Published on Bailii, 31/03/2017
Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC) COI Update Vol. 145
This document provides an update of UK Country Guidance case law, UK Home Office publications and developments in refugee producing countries (focusing on those which generate the most asylum seekers in the UK) between 21 March and 3 April 2017.