Harriet Nakigudde Wins Right to Remain
A lesbian asylum seeker, who faced deportation to Uganda, has won the right to remain in the UK. Campaigners warned that Harriet Nakigudde, 30, risked persecution and imprisonment if returned to Uganda. The Home Office had attempted to deport Ms Nakigudde, dismissing her testimony and rejecting the fact that she's gay. A previous failed attempt to deport the 30-year-old in May resulted in her collapsing whilst boarding a plane. The stress of her legal fight has taken its toll on Ms Nakigudde. She has lost weight and suffered from ill health, having been detained at the Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre for several months.
On Thursday, the African LGBTI Out and Proud Diamond Group (OPDG) announced that an immigration judge had ruled in Ms Nakigudde's favour. "I am so happy, so relieved and over the moon," Ms Nakigudde told PinkNews.co.uk. "At last I have my freedom and I can live my life. I am so happy that the judge believed me because the Home Office representative was trying to make me out as a liar."
"I would like to thank everyone that has supported me. I would like to thank PinkNews, the Out and Proud Diamond Group, and all of the public for helping me."
Read more;: Pink News, <>01/08/14
Radha Naran Patel awarded £125,000 Damages Against Home Office
Te award was for general and aggravated damages and as damages under the HRA and a further £15,000 in exemplary damages
The judgment concerns the claimant's claim for substantial general, aggravated and exemplary damages for false imprisonment and damages under articles 5, 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act.
These damages were claimed for her unlawful detention, for the malicious and deliberate bullying and ill-treatment that she suffered when she was interrogated in detention, for the concoction and fabrication of admissions that she was alleged to have made in interviews which were known by the interviewing IO to be false and the opposite of what she was answering and for her unlawful detention that was ultra vires, imposed for an ulterior purpose, whose imposition was an abuse of power and the decision for which was unreasonable, irrational and taken without considering what should have been considered and having considered what should not have been considered.
These damages were also claimed for her treatment following her detention. She was unlawfully released from detention on temporary admission which she should have been released with 6 months leave to enter. She was then subjected to a series of unlawful actions and decisions whose ulterior and unlawful purpose was to mislead the FtT and the Administrative Court, to cover up the unlawful her which would retrospectively but unlawfully have validated those detention decisions.
As a result of all of these unlawful actions, omissions and decisions, the claimant's claim succeeds and she is awarded a total of £110,000 in general and aggravated damages and as damages under the HRA and a further £15,000 in exemplary damages.
Saving Mothers and Children in Humanitarian Crises
Top Ten Worst Countries to be a Mother: Somalia, DR Congo, Niger, Mali, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire
Save the Children - State of the World's Mothers 2014:
Motherhood is the toughest job in the world. With long hours, constant demands and no time off, caring for our children is an all-consuming task. But for women living in crisis, the challenges of being a mother are greater – and the stakes are so much higher.
In humanitarian emergencies, when basic health services and livelihoods are disrupted, if not totally destroyed, mothers may find it impossible to adequately feed and support their families. They and their children also become more vulnerable to the risks of exploitation, sexual abuse and physical danger. So the tragedy of the crisis itself is compounded by fear and uncertainty, making mothers feel helpless.
More than 60 million women and children are in need of humanitarian assistance this year. Over half of maternal and child deaths worldwide occur in crisis-affected places; still the majority of these deaths are preventable. In this report, Save the Children examines the causes of maternal and child deaths in crisis settings, and suggests urgent actions needed to support mothers who are raising the world's future generations under some of the most difficult and horrific circumstances imaginable.
Each day, an estimated 800 mothers and 18,000 young children die from largely preventable causes. Over half of these maternal and under-5 deaths take place in fragile settings,1 which are at high risk of conflict and are particularly vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters.
Download the full report <>here . . . .
Greenwood (Automatic Deportation: Order of Events) 
The appealable decision that s 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 applies is not invalid by reason of being dated after the deportation order to which it relates.
In an appeal against automatic deportation there is no appeal against a decision to deport or against the order to deport, but only against the decision that s 32(5) applies.
If the First-tier Tribunal gives directions under s 86 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 they should be clear, so that the person affected knows whether to challenge them and everybody can tell whether they have been complied with.
It does not appear that the First-tier Tribunal has power to 'remit' to the Secretary of State.
Decision and Remittal
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State. The respondent, whom I shall call "the claimant", is a national of Jamaica, born in December 1978. He came to the United Kingdom in 2002 as a visitor. He sought a year's further leave as a student, which was granted, expiring on 30 September 2003. He undertook only three months of the course. He then remained in the United Kingdom without leave.
38. The First-tier Tribunal's determination contains errors on points of law. I set it aside. I remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal under s.12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act 2007. I make no directions as to the constitution of the Tribunal, but I direct that the appellant's first ground of appeal be determined in accordance with this determination.
Washington Detainees Begin 'Immigration Protest' Hunger Strike
Hundreds of undocumented migrants at a detention centre in Washington state have started a hunger strike, according to supporters, in the run-up to rallies and civil disobedience aimed at forcing through immigration reform. Detainees at the Tacoma facility started refusing food on Wednesday in a planned 75-hour fast, timed to end on Saturday when activists will march on the White House to demand that President Obama break the reform logjam. In addition to executive action to halt deportations and bypass Congress, where House Republicans have stalled legislation, the activists are demanding that the president personally meet undocumented leaders, a request which has divided mainstream immigration advocacy groups.
Read more; theguardian.com <>30/07/14
World Day Against Trafficking in Persons
Emphasizing that the practice of slavery still plagues modern society, the United Nations marked its first-ever World Day against Trafficking in Persons by calling on the international community to end impunity for perpetrators and help victims, especially women and children, who continue to be particularly vulnerable to the perfidious trade.
Millions of people are trafficked a year – women, men and children sold and forced to work in sweatshops, fields and brothels. The purposes of trafficking in persons range from forced and bonded labour to various forms of sexual exploitation, forced marriage, organ removal and other contemporary practices similar to slavery. And women and children account for three quarters of identified victims.
"Most of those trafficked are vulnerable women and children deceived into a life of suffering. They are exploited for sex and forced to work in conditions akin to slavery," said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his statement to mark the World Day.
Read more: UN News, <>30/07/14
Ending Violence Against Women Must Become a Top Priority
"On August 1, the Istanbul Convention, a landmark treaty of the Council of Europe dedicated to preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, will enter into force. It could not come at a better time. Violence against women remains one of the most widespread human rights violations which takes place every day in Europe; intimate partner violence is still among the major causes of non-accidental death, injury and disability for women. This tragic situation stems from a variety of social, economic and cultural reasons, but a common background condition is glaring inequality between men and women. The Convention has the potential to become a powerful driver in making progress on this pressing human rights issue", says Nils Mui?nieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in his latest Human Rights Comment published today.
If we look at available data, we can better grasp the urgency of the situation. It is estimated that at least 12 women are killed by gender-related violence in Europe every day. In 2013, available statistics showed that domestic violence claimed the lives of 121 women in France, 134 in Italy, 37 in Portugal, 54 in Spain and 143 in the United Kingdom. In Azerbaijan 83 women were killed and 98 committed suicide following cases of domestic violence, while data collected by the media in Turkey reported that at least 214 women were killed by men last year, mainly because of domestic violence and often despite these women having asked the authorities for protection. Available data covering the first six months of 2014 in many European countries continue to show such alarming figures.
Read more: Council of Europe, <>29/07/14
Migrant Benefits Crackdown to be Examined by EU
David Cameron's plan to cut benefits to European nationals is to be examined by the European Commission to check it does not breach EU law. The amount of time European migrants will be allowed to claim work-related benefits is to be halved to three months from November.
The Prime Minister said the move was designed to demonstrate to new arrivals that they should not expect to get "something for nothing" in Britain. Previous moves by the Government to tighten restrictions on EU nationals who move to Britain have fallen foul of the European Commission. Downing Street insists the latest measure is compatible with EU law and a source in Brussels said Mr Cameron's proposal "seems within the rules". But the source added: "We would only know for sure when they notify us with the concrete legislation. We will then examine to ensure compatibility with EU law."
Read more: Indpendent, <> 29/07/14
Impact of Iraq Conflict on Minorities 'Devastating and Irreversible'
Two United Nations human rights experts warned today that ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq are bearing the "devastating and irreversible" brunt of the conflict that has once again engulfed the country.
"I am gravely concerned about the physical safety of several minority groups in Iraq, including Christians, Shia – a minority in the North, Shabaks, Turkmen, Yazidis and others, who are being persecuted on the grounds of their religion and ethnicity," said the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák, in a joint press release with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Chaloka Beyani.
"Reliable information indicates that religious minorities are being targeted and their members subjected to abductions, killings or the confiscation of their property by extremist groups," Ms. Izsák said.
The "Islamic State" (IS) and associated armed groups have taken control of several cities and regions in northern Iraq in recent weeks. They are accused of gross human rights violations, some of which may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, including targeting and killing civilians.
Read more: UN News, <> 25/07/14
Budhathoki (Reasons for Decisions)  UKUT 341 (IAC)
It is generally unnecessary and unhelpful for First-tier Tribunal judgments to rehearse every detail or issue raised in a case. This leads to judgments becoming overly long and confused and is not a proportionate approach to deciding cases. It is, however, necessary for judges to identify and resolve key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons, so that the parties can understand why they have won or lost.
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision of the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Eban determined and promulgated on 7 April 2014, whereby the judge found in favour of the appellant, Ganga Budhathoki, and held that the appellant fell within regulation 7(1)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and the Secretary of State was wrong to refuse a residence card. The reasons for refusal are set out in a statutory letter of refusal and reasons for refusal, both dated 22 April 2013.
2. The appeal is brought by the Secretary of State on simple grounds based on a failure by the judge to give adequate reasons, in particular, a failure to give reasons in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Determination, to which paragraphs we shall return.
3. Permission to appeal was granted on 15 May 2014 on the basis of an arguable failure to give reasons and a failure to consider whether the EEA sponsor in this case was a qualified person exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom.
14. We are not for a moment suggesting that judgments have to set out the entire interstices of the evidence presented or analyse every nuance between the parties. Far from it. Indeed, we should make it clear that it is generally unnecessary, unhelpful and unhealthy for First-tier Tribunal judgments to seek to rehearse every detail or issue raised in the case. This leads to judgments becoming overly long and confused. Further, it is not a proportionate approach to deciding cases. It is, however, necessary for First-tier Tribunal judges to identify and resolve the key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons for preferring one case to the other so that the parties can understand why they have won or lost.
15. For those reasons we uphold the appeal, set aside the decision and remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of this judgment.