On 27th February 2017 two clients of Duncan Lewis Immigration Consultant Solicitor Naim Hasani were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in three linked nationality cases. This matter looks to clarify when it is appropriate to deprive an individual of British nationality or treat the citizenship claim as a nullity, in cases where the individual has obtained citizenship by way of impersonation, fraud and/or concealment of a material fact. The cases are lined up to set a precedent for future decisions regarding nationality claims via naturalization as a result of false representations.

There are between 700-800 cases concerning potential nullity or deprivation action known to the Secretary of State for Home Department (SSHD). A number of these cases are currently listed in the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal and have been stayed pending the outcome of this case.

[1.  At the current time it is not reasonably likely that a draft-evader avoiding conscription or mobilisation in Ukraine would face criminal or administrative proceedings for that act, although if a draft-evader did face prosecution proceedings the Criminal Code of Ukraine does provide, in Articles 335, 336 and 409, for a prison sentence for such an offence. It would be a matter for any Tribunal to consider, in the light of developing evidence, whether there were aggravating matters which might lead to imposition of an immediate custodial sentence, rather than a suspended sentence or the matter proceeding as an administrative offence and a fine being sought by a prosecutor.

2.   There is a real risk of anyone being returned to Ukraine as a convicted criminal sentenced to a term of imprisonment in that country being detained on arrival, although anyone convicted in absentia would probably be entitled thereafter to a retrial in accordance with Article 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

3.  There is a real risk that the conditions of detention and imprisonment in Ukraine would subject a person returned to be detained or imprisoned to a breach of Article 3 ECHR.]

Last month Robert Chilowa was hailed a hero after saving children from a fatal house fire - and this month he was told to get out of Britain. Mr Chilowa, 46, dashed to the scene of the ferocious blaze engulfing a neighbour's house after hearing screams of terror and helped rescue two young children from the flames which claimed the lives of their grandparents. His bravery "truly demonstrated community spirit", police and fire chiefs said, and more lives could have been lost but for his "noble" actions along with other neighbours.

But three weeks later he is fighting to save his home in Withington, Manchester after being told he has outstayed his welcome in the UK. Hospitalised for smoke inhalation after the fire, he has also been told not to use the NHS, he said. Mr Chilowa, who came to the UK in 2001, says he is facing deportation back to Zimbabwe, where he says he fears for his safety. "It is a slap in the face," he said. "Friends said, 'When are you going to see the Queen? When are you going to be knighted? I did a great job but now what they are saying is, 'Get lost.'"

Read more: Belfast Telegraph, http://tiny.cc/5y5kjy

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 February and 6 March 2017. 

Source: http://tiny.cc/rjznjy

SSHD v RF (Jamaica) [2017] EWCA Civ 124 (03 March 2017)

1. This is the appeal of the Secretary of State against the determination of the Upper Tribunal promulgated on 24 March 2014 dismissing her appeal against the determination of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 9 January 2014 which had allowed RF's appeal against the deportation order made against him. It is yet another appeal in a case to which section 32(5) and section 33(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007, and paragraphs 390A, 398, 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules apply.

The facts in summary

1. RF is a Jamaican national born on 15 November 1981. He entered the UK as a visitor on 14 September 2002 and thereafter extended his leave as a student. On 15 November 2004 he married a British national. His daughter, also a British national, was born on 27 June 2005. Although refused leave to remain as a spouse, on 3 July 2009 RF was granted discretionary leave on the basis of his marriage, with such leave to expire on 2 July 2012. On 5 January 2011 RF was convicted, following a trial, of possession of a Class A controlled drug (crack cocaine) with intent to supply. He was previously of good character. On arrest he had one thousand pounds in his possession, which the trial judge considered was probably the proceeds of the sale of drugs. He admitted possession of a Class B drug (cannabis). He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He did not appeal against the conviction or sentence.

1. Under section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 RF, having received a sentence of more than 12 months' imprisonment, faced automatic deportation, unless his case fell within one of the exceptions set out in section 33 of that Act. Section 33(2) provides that an exception is made out if deportation of the foreign criminal would breach "a person's right under the [European] Convention [on Human Rights]".

1. The Secretary of State, having examined the facts of his case, decided that none of the statutory exceptions applied and made a deportation order dated 6 June 2013.

18. Turning to the Secretary of State's submissions in relation to paragraph 47 of the determination, I accept that the inference to be drawn from paragraphs 398 and 399 of the Immigration Rules is that, in general, the fact that paragraph 399(a) is satisfied will not of itself assist a person who has been sentenced to more than 4 years' imprisonment. However, I stress the qualifications on this proposition. Particularly where children are concerned, there is no such thing as an average case. There are usually other factors to be taken into account, and ultimately the Secretary of State and the Tribunal must consider the individual facts of the case. That is what the First-tier Tribunal did in this case.

19. Finally, I do not think that the First-tier Tribunal erred in referring to the fact that the Respondent received the minimum sentence to which paragraph 398(a) applies. It is relevant to the decision of a Tribunal whether an appellant received a sentence of, say 4 years or one of 10 years. It does not follow that the Tribunal applied a "near-miss" approach. It is clear from the passages in its determination to which I have referred that this was a rare case in which the Tribunal decided as it did because it was satisfied that there were very compelling reasons justifying a disposal that avoided unjustifiably harsh consequences for the Respondent and his family.

20. In my judgment, the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to allow the Respondent's appeal having regard to the very strong evidence in his and his family's favour. It follows that the Upper Tribunal was right to dismiss the Secretary of State's appeal. I would dismiss the Secretary of State's appeal to this Court.

Published on Bailii, 03/03/2017
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/124.html

1.1 Basis of claim

1.1.1 Fear of gender-based persecution or serious harm by non-state actors because the person is a woman (or girl).

1.2 Points to note

1.2.1 For the purposes of this note, gender-based persecution or serious harm includes domestic violence, sexual violence including rape, ‘honour’ crimes; female genital mutilation; sexual harassment; and forced marriage/divorce.

Refworld, 08/03/2017

Investigative journalist Amitt Bhatt is facing deportation to India and the likelihood of arrest and torture – possibly even death – for his work exposing corruption and human rights abuses in war-torn Kashmir. On March 14th, he has his last-chance appeal against deportation.
 
 Why Amitt is in danger
 
Amitt's activities would make him particularly vulnerable given the current situation in India. There have been numerous incidents against journalists including threats and intimidation, harassment, kidnapping, murder, torture, extra-judicial killings, false criminal and sedition cases, and unlawful censorship.
 
He worked for the newspaper Publicmail, which exposed corruption and human rights. His high-profile investigations covered the Commonwealth Games timing, scoring and results scam which saw the Chairman of the 2010 games Organising Committee, Suresh Kalmadi, and other senior officials jailed. He had taken a job in the technology department of the Commonwealth Games and was reporting from the HQ in New Delhi until his cover was blown.
 
He reported cases of malpractice and corruption in government ministries, engineered riots, the exploitation and trafficking of women and malpractices in India’s political system.
 
In February 2011, he was detained by the authorities in a kidnapping independently confirmed by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), which supports his case. He was tortured for more than a month, including by sustained flagellation, electric shocks to the head, sleep deprivation, foot whipping and being forced to drink petrol. He was interrogated on the location of documents, his associations and other information which he had gathered in support of his journalistic activities.
 
After a month, he managed to escape through a toilet window, made contact with friends and supporters who provided medical attention and kept him secure, moving him from one safe house to another. But his physical and mental health were severely affected and he still suffers from ulcerative colitis, epilepsy seizures, deafness and tinnitus, migraine and depression. He says: “I almost had turned into a Zombie, a walking talking dead man.”
 
Finally, he was able to establish contact with a friend who was in touch with Amitt’s wife who had fled to the UK, and with the help of friends a visa and flight to Britain.
 
What you can do
 
There is a petition to the government that supporters are asked to sign,
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/support-journalist-amitt-bhatts-right-to-stay-in
 
Last year his case featured on ITV’s Granada reports.
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2016-10-26/watch-journalist-asylum-seeker-fears-his-life-is-in-danger-if-hes-deported/

View it and Forward to Friends and Supporters.

That this House is extremely concerned by the growing domestic human rights violations in Iran and the high number of executions; highlights the role of Islamic Revolutionary Guards' (IRGC) increase in its domestic crackdown, including the arrest of activists, dissidents and dual nationals on trumped-up charges; is very disturbed by Iran’s malign influence in the region through the IRGC, its Quds Force and its proxies that have participated in the slaughter of Syrian people, which the Government and many of its allies have described as war crimes; notes that IRGC plays a destabilising role in Iraq by providing training, funds and arms to paramilitary groups in that country; warns that Iran's continued ballistic missile tests are a threat to the region; believes that the regime and IRGC must know that their violations of human rights at home and warmongering abroad will not be tolerated; reiterates National Council of Resistance of Iran president-elect Mrs Maryam Rajavi's call on the international community for the complete removal of the IRGC and its proxies from Syria, Iraq and the region as a vital step to stabilise the Middle East; and urges the Government to condemn the IRGC for its serious violations of human rights and support for terrorism.

Put Your MP to Work – Demand They Sign EDM  1013  

To find your MP go here: https://www.writetothem.com/

That this House notes that it has been one year since the murder of Goldman Environmental Prize-winner Berta Cáceres; further notes the ongoing persecution and killing of environmental, land and human rights defenders across the world; takes note of the 2016 Global Witness report, On Dangerous Ground, which found that there has been 1,176 documented killings of land and environmental defenders globally since 2002; expresses alarm at the killing of nearly 100 environmental activists in the Philippines since 2010, including Mia Manuelita Cumba Masacariñas-Green on 15 February 2017; further expresses alarm at the killing of over 120 environmental activists in Honduras since 2010, including Berta Cáceres, who had gained international recognition for her decade-long opposition to the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam on her community's land; calls on the Government to make public statements at the Ministerial and Ambassadorial levels recognising the vital and legitimate role of human rights defenders in states where their work is routinely stigmatised; and further calls on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through its diplomatic activities, to support the rights of local communities to say no to extractive projects on their land, to provide international recognition and protection to environmental, land and human rights defenders and to work to resolve the underlying causes of violence against such defenders by tackling the corruption and illegalities that blight the natural resource sectors.

Sponsors: Lucas, Caroline / Saville Roberts,/  Liz Ferrier, Margaret / Godsiff, Roger

Put Your MP to Work – Demand They Sign EDM  1012  

To find your MP go here: https://www.writetothem.com/

That this House regrets the findings of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, having conducted an inquiry under Article 6 of the Protocol to the Convention, that has identified serious and systematic violations of the Convention by the UK; notes the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has found reliable evidence that the threshold of grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities has been met in the UK; recognises that this finding reflects very poorly on the Government in failing to meet internationally-accepted standards in regard to the provision of care and support for the UK's most vulnerable people; and calls on the Prime Minister to intervene personally and to direct her Ministers to prioritise immediate compliance with all Convention standards on the Rights of Persons with a Disability, and to apologise to both the UN and to all persons with a disability for failing to satisfactorily identify and provide acceptable minimum levels of care, support and maintenance necessary to meet the basic living requirements of all persons with disabilities and resident in the UK.

Overview: Jihadist insurgents in Pakistan unleashed a new wave of attacks in February prompting the government to launch a deadly crackdown, while the military’s targeting of alleged Taliban camps across the border in Afghanistan escalated tensions between Islamabad and Kabul. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict saw intensified fighting along the Line of Contact (LoC). North Korea’s announcement of another missile test and the assassination of its leader’s estranged half-brother drew international condemnation. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), old security threats re-emerged and in the Central African Republic (CAR) fighting between rebel factions spiked and could worsen in March.

Conflict Risk Alerts: Central African Republic - Resolution Opportunities None

CrisisWatch is a monthly early warning bulletin designed to provide a regular update on the state of the most significant situations of conflict around the world.

Read the full report: International Crisis Group, http://tiny.cc/tg8jjy

In its decision in the case of K2 v. the United Kingdom (application no. 42387/13) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final. K2 was suspected of taking part in terrorism-related activities in Somalia. In 2010, the Secretary of State for the Home Office deprived him of his UK citizenship and barred him from re-entering the country. K2 claimed that these decisions had violated his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, and had been discriminatory.

ECtHR: 09/03/2017, http://tiny.cc/cvlpjy