News & Views Monday 24th December to Sunday 6th January 2019  

Financial Appeal for 'No-Deportations' - 2019

Migrants Who Return to Country of Birth Significantly Higher Than First Thought

Claims of a surge in migration around the world appear to be overstated, as a new study suggests movement of people has in fact been largely stable since the 1990s. The number of people who moved country in each five-year period over the last 25 years has fluctuated between 67 and 87 million people, according to University of Washington researchers.

While this is higher than some previous estimates of global migration, the researchers found that it represents a stable proportion of between 1.1 and 1.3 per cent of the global population. They used a new method for estimating migration flows which they said better captures those on the move between developing nations where migration data is less robust and could help governments better predict and prepare for population change. “Planning for migration is no simple task,” said Professor Adrian Raftery a statistician and sociologist who led the research.

It suggests that emigration from Mexico to the United States was the biggest flow between 2010 and 2015, accounting for 2.1 million people. However the US to Mexico also had the highest rate of return migration, accounting for 1.3 million people – four times the rate of return from the United Arab Emirates to India.

Approximately 45 per cent of migrants returned to their home country in the studied period from 1990 to 2015. This appears to be particularly relevant for those displaced by conflict.

 Read more: Alex Matthews-King,

Appeal AllowedAafter a Long Legal Battle in Forrester v SSHD

The appellant in this case, is a Jamaican national born in 1980. The appellant challenged the Secretary of State’s (SSHD) decision to deport him on the basis that deportation would disproportionately breach both his family and private life. The Court of Appeal has now ruled in our client’s favour finding that deportation would breach his human rights.

History of the Case

Our client first left Jamaica as a young child at age 4 to live with his mother in the USA. At 14 years old he entered the UK as a visitor to visit his father who was already settled here. Our client was initially granted discretionary leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain in 2000, when he was 20.

By this point, he had a daughter who was born in the UK in 1997. His relationship with her mother ended in 2004. His daughter remained living with her mother; however, when she began to attend college she lived with her father in the week as she studied close by. 

In 2011 our client was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. In 2013 he was served with a deportation order on the basis that his removal was conducive to the public good. He appealed this decision on the basis that:
  1. Deportation would amount to exile because of his private life in the UK under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  2. There will be a negative impact on his daughter.
  3. There was sufficient evidence to show that he had remorse and rehabilitated.

After success in the First-tier Tribunal (FtT), the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed its finding and sent it back to a differently constituted FtT. This Tribunal upheld the initial FtT’s decision and our client’s appeal was allowed. Once again the SSHD appealed this decision and the UT found it in their favour, on the basis that there was no legal justification for setting aside the deportation order and that the FtT’s decision was based on a material error of law. At this stage, our client appealed the UT’s ruling, claiming that there was no material error of law and thus no legal argument to support the decision to set aside the FtT’s decision.

Court of Appeal Judgment 

By the time our client reached the Court of Appeal he had a British born daughter and grandchild. The appellant has extended family in the UK and no ties with Jamaica.

There are two exceptions where a deportation order is made against a foreign criminal according to 117C of Article 8 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Exception 1 applies where the individual has (a) been lawfully resided in the UK for the majority of their life, (b) is socially/ culturally integrated in the UK, and (c) there would be very significant obstacles to their integration into the country to which they are to be deported. Exception 2 is met when there is a ‘genuine and subsisting relationship’ with a partner, or child, and deportation would impact harshly on these relationships.

The Court of Appeal noted that both of the statutory deportation exceptions set out were met in this case. However, our client could not rely on those exceptions because he had received a four year sentence and had to demonstrate very compelling circumstances to defeat the public interest ground for deportation.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the UT was wrong since they focused only on very compelling circumstances.

When delivering his judgment, in para. 20 Sir Patrick Elias commented: ‘The real gravamen of this ground of appeal is that the judge assumed that once something over and above an exception was established this would amount to compelling circumstances. But I do not think that this is a sustainable reading of judgement'.

On this basis, agreeing that his deportation would breach his human rights, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Our client is very pleased with this decision. He and his family had to fight a long battle to succeed and have incurred significant legal costs as a result.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors:


On the First Day Of 2019, Over 395,000 Babies Born Worldwide

As revellers say ‘hello’ to 2019 with great festivities, the world welcomes its newest residents, over 395,000 children are expected to be born on 1 January. Over half of these births are estimated to take place in eight countries which include India, China, Nigeria, Indonesia, the United States and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

UNICEF is taking the opportunity to call on nations to meet every new-born’s right to health and survival. The agency’s Deputy Executive Director, Charlotte Petri Gornitzka, asked the world to join UNICEF in “making a resolution to fulfil every right of every child, starting with the right to survive”.

As families take into their arms countless Alexanders and Ayeshas, Zixuans and Zainabs, in several countries many babies will not even be named as they won’t make it past their first day, the agency warned. According to UNICEF, in 2017, about one million babies died the day they were born, and 2.5 million in just their first month of life.

Most died from preventable causes such as premature birth, complications during delivery, and infections like pneumonia, in what the agency called ‘a violation of their basic right to survival’.

Read more: UN News,

ASAP: Easy Fact Sheets - for Anyone with Questions About Asylum Support

Factsheet 1 - Section 95 Support

Factsheet 2 - Section 4 Support

Factsheet 3 - Appealing to the Asylum Support Tribunal

Factsheet 4 - Filling in the Appeal Notice

Factsheet 5 - Proving Destitution

Factsheet 6 - Evidence for Section 4 appeals

Factsheet 7 - After a Negative Appeal Decision

Factsheet 8 - s4 for pregnant, refused asylum seekers

Factsheet 9 - Extra payments (s4 & s95)

Factsheet 10 - Domestic abuse

Factsheet 11 - Asylum Support for Dependents

Factsheet 12 - Section 4 and Human Rights

Factsheet 13 - Introduction to Judicial Review

Factsheet 15 - Suspending, delaying or reducing s95 payments and back payments of support

Factsheet 16 - Emergency Support Following a Successful S4 Appeal

Factsheet 17 - Section 98 Support

Source: Asylum Support Appeals Project

Immigration: Unaccompanied Children - Date Criterion Removed

The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)

The Government remain committed to relocating the specified number of 480 unaccompanied children to the United Kingdom under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, commonly known as the “Dubs amendment”. The first 220 of those children arrived under exceptional circumstances as part of the UK’s comprehensive support to the clearance of the Calais camp from October 2016. During this time, this Government took unprecedented action to remove vulnerable children from a dangerous situation where they were at risk of violence and abuse.

Following discussion with delivery partners, we have decided to remove the date criterion for when children had to have arrived in Europe to qualify for transfer to the UK. Delivering section 67 in a safe way, which respects individual states’ national laws and the best interests of children, remains a priority for the Government.

This decision means that participating states—France, Greece and Italy—will now be able to refer the most vulnerable children, regardless of when they arrived ?into Europe. To be eligible for the scheme, it must be in the child’s best interests to come to the UK, rather than to remain in their current host country, be transferred to another EU member state or to be reunited with family outside of Europe. We continue to ask participating states to prioritise unaccompanied children who are most likely to be granted refugee status and/or are the most vulnerable.

It is this Government’s hope that removing the date criterion will speed up transfers and will enable participating states to more easily identify children for transfer as soon as possible. We are grateful for the ongoing support to meet this commitment from the Governments of participating states, delivery partners and UK local authorities. Ensuring the safe relocation of children under the scheme as soon as possible is dependent on appropriate care placements being available for children once they arrive in the UK. The Home Office continues to work closely with local authorities across the UK to place children as quickly as possible and in a location where their individual care needs can be met.

[HCWS1255]  20/12/2018