Nasim and others (Article 8)  UKUT 25 (IAC)
The judgments of the Supreme Court in Patel and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 72 serve to re-focus attention on the nature and purpose of Article 8 of the ECHR and, in particular, to recognise that Article's limited utility in private life cases that are far removed from the protection of an individual's moral and physical integrity.
A person's human rights are not enhanced by not committing criminal offences or not relying on public funds. The only significance of such matters in cases concerning proposed or hypothetical removal from the United Kingdom is to preclude the Secretary of State from pointing to any public interest justifying removal, over and above the basic importance of maintaining a firm and coherent system of immigration control.
All 22 appeals dismissed
EDM 982: Masud Ahmad & Persecution of Ahmadiyya's In Pakistan
That this House notes the case of the British national, Mr Masud Ahmad, a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who is imprisoned in Pakistan under the country's draconian anti-Ahmadi laws after being secretly filmed reading the Holy Qur'an; condemns Pakistan's continued persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; further condemns the anti-Ahmadi laws that are used to target Ahmadi Muslims and the blasphemy laws that are used to target religious groups to deny them their right to freedom of religion; acknowledges the risk that ongoing detention poses to Mr Ahmad's life; and therefore calls on the Government to make representations to the Pakistani authorities, urging them to withdraw charges against Mr Ahmad and release him with immediate effect in line with the country's stated commitment to religious freedom and tolerance under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Sponsors: McDonagh, Siobhain/ Sharma, Virendra / Hamilton, Fabian / Gapes, Mike / Blears, Hazel - <>House of Commons: 22.01.2014
EU Nationals: Deportation
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the powers under which EU citizens may be administratively removed from the UK; what conditions must be fulfilled for such removals to take place; and how many people of what EU nationality have been so removed in each year since 2008-09. 
Mr Harper [holding answer 20 January 2014]:EU nationals only have a right of residence in another member state for longer than three months if they are exercising treaty rights as a worker, jobseeker, student, self-employed or self-sufficient person. Member states can administratively remove EU nationals who do not fulfil the residence requirements.
Since 1 January 2014 those EU nationals who are administratively removed from the UK for not fulfilling the residence requirements will also be unable to re-enter for 12 months following their removal, unless they can demonstrate that they will be immediately exercising treaty rights.
Member states can also administratively remove EU nationals who abuse free movement rights. Since 1 January 2014 EU nationals who participate in, or facilitate, marriages of convenience, those who fraudulently acquire a right of residence, and those who seek to circumvent the requirements for residence can be administratively removed by the Home Office. EU nationals who are administratively removed from the.UK for the abuse of free movement rights will be unable to re-enter if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that readmission would lead to abuse.
Separate deportation removal powers apply for cases of criminality.
House of Commons / <>22 Jan 2014 : Column 204W
EU and Afghanistan: Mission Accomplished, Women Abandoned?
UK Prime Minister David Cameron may feel that his country's Afghanistan mission is "accomplished," but Afghan women paint a much bleaker picture.
Despite 12 years of armed conflict, investment and capacity-building by foreign governments in Afghanistan, including by European Union governments and the EU itself, women's rights remain in peril.
Violence against women and forced marriage are rife, while high-profile female government officials and civil society activists face threats and attacks by the resilient Taliban insurgency.
All too often, the government appears unable or unwilling to bring to justice the perpetrators of these crimes. Worse, in the last year Afghan government officials have themselves attacked some of the most basic legal safeguards for women.
Read more: Human Rights Watch, <> 20/01/14
Garden Court Chambers - Immigration Law Bulletin - Issue 355
London Noise Demo In Solidarity With Refugees Inside Israel
4: 30pm Wednesday 22nd January 2014
Outside Israeli Embassy,
2 Palace Green,
London W8 4QB.
Nearest tube : High Street Kensington
Bring Banners, Pots, Pans, Whistles, whatever you want to bang and make noise with
African asylum seekers in Israel *call for international action* outside Israeli Embassies on 22nd January 2014 to demand freedom and mobilize against the arbitrary arrests, imprisonment and inhumane treatment of refugees inside Israel. Since the beginning of January 2014 tens of thousands of African asylum seekers (mostly from Eritrea and Sudan) have taken to the streets across cities in Israel holding *mass rallies* and declaring *general strikes* :
Stop The Persecution Of Migrants And Refugees - Free Movement And Liberty For All
Thank you for your support.
Kind Regards, African Asylum Seekers Community in Israel
Any demonstrations/direct actions, please notify
To be regarded as a dependant of an EU citizen, a descendant who is over 21 years old and a third-country national, does not have to establish that he has tried all possible means to support himself
A Member State cannot require the descendant to prove, in order to obtain a residence permit, that he has tried unsuccessfully to find work or to obtain a subsistence allowance in his country of origin
Judgment in Case C-423/12 Reyes v Migrationsverket
EU law extends the right of all EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States to the members of their family, whatever their nationality. Family members include, in particular, direct descendants who are less than 21 years old or who are dependent on the EU citizen.
[The fact that that person resided in the host Member State for the 10 years prior to imprisonment may be taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment required in order to determine whether the integrating links previously forged with the host Member State have been broken.]
(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 28(3)(a) - Protection against expulsion - Method for calculating the 10-year period - Whether periods of imprisonment are to be taken into account)
In Case C-400/12,
Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), London (United Kingdom), made by decision of 24 August 2012, received at the Court on 31 August 2012, in the proceedings
SSHD v M.G
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:
1. On a proper construction of Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the 10-year period of residence referred to in that provision must, in principle, be continuous and must be calculated by counting back from the date of the decision ordering the expulsion of the person concerned.
2. Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a period of imprisonment is, in principle, capable both of interrupting the continuity of the period of residence for the purposes of that provision and of affecting the decision regarding the grant of the enhanced protection provided for thereunder, even where the person concerned resided in the host Member State for the 10 years prior to imprisonment. However, the fact that that person resided in the host Member State for the 10 years prior to imprisonment may be taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment required in order to determine whether the integrating links previously forged with the host Member State have been broken.
Family Returns Process Operational Guidance Update
As an update, the guidance on the family returns process in chapter 45b of the Operation and Enforcement manual has now been revised to include the policy agreed in relation to torture survivors within this process, available at 188.8.131.52 <> here:
This policy provides for the Home Office to consider all reasonable requests from the family in this process to delay their departure to enable victims of torture in the family to complete ongoing, regular treatment they are receiving as a victim of torture or to make arrangements with their clinician for treatment to continue in the home country, as below:
"Family members receiving ongoing regular treatment as a victim of torture, may bring to the FRC a letter signed by their clinician to confirm this. The FEM should verify the situation through the legal representative (or with the treatment centre directly only if there is no legal representative), then consider all reasonable requests from the family to delay their departure until victims of torture have completed their ongoing treatment or, where possible, until the family have made arrangements with their clinician for treatment to continue in their home country.
The FEM should update the FWF section on 'medical care and support outside the NHS', recording details about the clinical treatment and any engagement with the treatment centre."
Zoe Harper / Law and Policy Officer / Freedom From Torture
Human Rights Watch - World Report 2014
HRW's annual review of human rights practices around the globe. It summarizes key human rights issues in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide, drawing on events from the end of 2012 through November 2013. Download the report <> here . . . .
Britain not Consistent in Fighting Human Rights Abuses
What are the implications of this report closer to home? William Hague has repeatedly claimed that human rights are at the heart of Britain's foreign policy, and that ministers and diplomats press human rights concerns "whenever and wherever they arise".
While there are many areas where Britain is doing excellent work on human rights, for example on issues like sexual violence in conflict or combating the use of the death penalty, there are other areas where UK policy falls significantly short. Three in particular are worth highlighting.
Firstly, there are a number of important countries where the British government appears very reluctant to press human rights concerns with sufficient vigour or consistency. Saudi Arabia, China and Uzbekistan all fall into this category.
Over the last year, the Saudi authorities have shown growing intolerance towards citizens advocating reform. Eight prominent human rights activists have been convicted on broad, catch-all charges, such as "trying to distort the reputation of the kingdom", and Saudi women and girls continue to suffer systematic discrimination through the male guardianship system.
Yet the British government's response to these abuses is extremely muted. In China, British ministers have lauded the country's economic achievements and the potential for greater trade and investment. But they have failed to apply sustained pressure over massive ongoing human rights violations, including repression in Tibet and Xinjiang, the detention and arrest of activists, and severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association.
In Uzbekistan, the British government has reached a deal with Tashkent to "gift" certain leftover military equipment from the war in Afghanistan, but said precious little about the country's truly abysmal human rights record, including a criminal justice system in which torture is endemic.
In these three cases and others the British government, consistent with its declared policy, should be pressing human rights concerns much more strongly.
Secondly, the British government is failing to fully adhere to its obligations under the UN Convention on Torture, a point highlighted last year by the UN Committee on Torture. In a shocking breach of previous assurances, the Government announced last month that it is shelving plans to undertake a proper judge-led inquiry into British involvement in overseas rendition and torture.
This is despite the fact that Human Rights Watch uncovered evidence in September 2011 that British security services were complicit in the rendition of Sami al-Saadi and Abdul Hakim Belhaj to Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, and in the torture of British citizens and residents in Pakistan between 2004 and 2007.
The British government has said that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have responsibility for further investigations. Yet this body has a poor track record of holding the security services to account. David Cameron has rightly said that these revelations have "stained our reputation" as a country. But this broken promise over the torture inquiry will do nothing to erase that stain or restore Britain's reputation.
Thirdly, British government ministers should curb their frequent and ill-judged attacks on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drafted in the 1950s with the support of Winston Churchill and extensive British involvement, the Convention has proved its worth over the past 60 years in protecting and promoting rights for people across 47 countries in Europe.
Its case law has helped to end commonplace torture in custody, promote equal treatment for women and lesbian and gay people, ban corporal punishment in schools, end abusive interrogation practices by the British army in Northern Ireland, and uphold the freedom of the media to publish articles in the public interest, against the wishes of the authorities.
Mr Hague's ability to credibly raise human rights concerns with other governments would be gravely damaged were Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, a dangerous and misguided policy position endorsed by some of his ministerial colleagues.
Those who suffer abuses around the world need Britain to consistently and strongly champion international human rights, and the institutions that help to further them.
Court Interpreting Firm Capita Fined Thousands
Capita had £46,319 of payments withheld by the Ministry of Justice between May 2012 and November 2013, according to a report by a public spending watchdog. Judges filed orders of £7,229 to cover the cost of translators failing to turn up, the National Audit Office added. Capita says its performance has improved significantly since last May.
Capita took over Applied Language Solutions (ALS), which had been awarded responsibility for the interpreter service, at the start of 2012. Staff shortages at that time meant that courtroom trials were disrupted.
Read more: BBC News, <>22/01/14
Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC) COI Update Volume 71
This document provides an update of Country Guidance case law and UKBA publications and developments in refugee producing countries between 7th January and 21st January 2014 - Volume 71 <> here . . .
UKBA: Operational Guidance Note: Gambia
This document provides Home Office caseworkers with guidance on the nature and handling of the most common types of claims received from nationals/residents of Gambia, including whether claims are or are not likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. Caseworkers must refer to the relevant asylum instructions for further details of the policy on these areas. Caseworkers must not base decisions on the country of origin information in this guidance; it is included to provide context only and does not purport to be comprehensive.
<>Published on Refworld, 21/01/14
Alois Dvorzac - UKBA Guilty of Murder by Neglect
Alois Dvorzac an 84-year-old national of Canada, entered the UK on the 23rd January 2013 and was immediately detained. According to the Canadian High Commission in London he was trying to find his estranged daughter in Slovenia. He made it as far as Gatwick airport. He was detained there because his paperwork was not in order and was eventually brought to Harmondsworth IRC.
On Jan. 30, 2013, a doctor at the centre diagnosed the man with Alzheimer's disease and declared him unfit for detention. The doctor's report stated: "Frail, 84 yrs old, has Alzheimer's disease … demented. UNFIT for detention or deportation. Requires social care."
An attempt by UKBA early February 2013 to remove Mr. Dvorzac, failed after doctors declared he was unfit to fly. On 8 February he was taken to hospital and then made a return visit two days later. Soon afterwards, he died of heart failure. date of death was Sunday 10th February 2013.
Source for this information: <>CBN News& Paraic O'Brien,<>Channel4News
UKBA Dehumanises Immigrants – No Wonder Tragedies Happen
Harmondsworth detention centre: 'A toxic mix of misinformation and spin is essential to get those who are 'just carrying out orders' not to flinch when handcuffing those who should not be restrained.'
When the Clash's Joe Strummer commented: "People are out there doing bad things to each other. That's because they have been dehumanised," he probably didn't have the Home Office and its sub-contractors in mind.
But his words are relevant to the findings of the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, who investigated some of the appalling practices at Harmondsworth immigration detention centre near Heathrow. In his report published on Thursday, he accused Geo staff at Harmondsworth of "a shocking lack of humanity" when handcuffing two elderly men – one was 84-year-old Alois Dvorzac, who was suffering from dementia, and the other was using a wheelchair following a stroke. In Dvorzac's case the restraints were not removed until after his death; in the second man's case they were removed just hours before he died.
Read more: Diane Taylor, theguardian.com, <> Friday 17 January 2014
Ali Zahid - and - SSHD
The claimant challenges the defendant's decision dated 10 September 2013 to remove him from the United Kingdom. He also challenges the legality of his actual removal to Pakistan on 1 October 2013, seeking a declaration that it was unlawful. He also seeks an order quashing his removal and for his mandatory return to the United Kingdom and/or damages.
Conclusions: Accordingly, for the reasons that I have given, this application for judicial review is refused. I do however declare that the decision to remove the claimant was unlawful. I do not quash the decision. I do not order the return of the defendant for the reasons given. I do find that the claimant is entitled to damages to be assessed if not agreed.
Periods in prison cannot be taken into account for the purposes of the acquisition of a permanent residence permit or with a view to the grant of enhanced protection against expulsion Similarly, periods of imprisonment, in principle, interrupt the continuity of the requisite periods for granting those advantages More . . . .