No-Deportations - Residence Papers for All

    News & Views Monday 11th May to Sunday 17th May 2015

JA (meaning of "Access Rights")

[2015] UKUT 225 (IAC) (17 April 2015)

(Determination of the First-tier Tribunal set aside - decision remade - appeal against decision of respondent allowed)

[Obiter: 1. Where the Immigration Rules are silent as to interpretation, it may be necessary to refer to the Children Act 1989 (as amended) and other family legislation in order to construe those parts of the Rules which provide a route to entry clearance or leave to remain as a parent.

2. "Access" in the latest version of the Immigration Rules means the same as "contact" in the previous paragraph 284A. Neither term is now used in the Family Court where Child Arrangements Orders are made to regulate "(a) with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact; and (b) where a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact with any person."

3. The expression "access rights" in paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i) may refer equally to parents who have "indirect" access to a child by means of letters, telephone calls etc as well as to those who spend time with a child ("direct" access). A parent may also have "access rights" where there is no court order at all, for example, where parents agree access arrangements (the "no order" principle; section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 (as amended)).

4. Having satisfied the requirements of paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (i), an appellant must still prove that he/she "is taking and intend to continue to take an active role in the child's upbringing"(paragraph E-LTRPT.2.4 (a) (ii)). Whether he/she will be able to do so will depend upon the evidence rather than the nature of the "access rights." However, it is likely to be unusual that a person having only "indirect" access rights will be able to satisfy this provision. In some cases, Tribunals may need to examine the reasons why the Family Court has ordered "indirect" rather then "direct" access.]

Determination and Reasons

1. The appellant, JA, is a male citizen of India. By a decision dated 10 May 2014, the respondent refused the appellant's application for further discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his relationship with his children (J and Z). A decision was also made to remove the appellant by way of directions under Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The appellant had entered the United Kingdom in November 2000 with leave to remain as a visitor. He had remained in the United Kingdom for eight years beyond the expiry of that visit visa without making any attempt to regularise his immigration status. He left the United Kingdom in April 2008 but returned again in October 2008 with leave to remain (until 26 December 2010) as the spouse of a British citizen. On 5 February 2011, the appellant was granted discretionary leave to remain until 4 February 2014 as the parent of British children subject to conditions in respect of employment and recourse to public funds. Whilst that leave was extant, the appellant applied for further leave to remain on the basis of his parental relationship. It is that application which is the subject of this appeal.

Notice of Decision
The determination of the First-tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 11 September 2014 is set aside. I have re-made the decision. The appellant's appeal against the decision of the respondent dated 10 May 2014 is allowed.

Shut Down Dungavel IRC

12.00 noon Saturday 30th May 2015

Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre
South Lanarkshire
ML10 6RF

Called by the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) and the Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees

Bring your friends, bring your colleagues, bring your banners and don't foget to bring yourself!

The new Tory government in Westminster spells bad news for refugees and other immigrants. On the other hand the SNP has been the most positive and welcoming of all the major political parties. This demonstration calling for the closure of Dungavel and all the other detention centres gives us the chance to strengthen the SNP's resolve and let the Westminster government know they have a fight on their hands. We will not let the next five years degenerate into a festival of xenophobia. Scapegoating immigrants hurts us as well. Note Ian Duncan Smith's idea for plastic cards and no cash for those on benefits, first tried out on asylum seekers.  

There is no public transport to Dungavel. The nearest railways stations are at East Kilbride or Hamilton.

Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) are running buses
To book a place go to STUC Coaches registration <>here . . . .

From: Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees <>

'Kent Refugee Help' Invites you to Their AGM

For a Positive Conversation about Migration

Join us in solidarity with Refugees and Migrants
Saturday 30th May, 11.30am - 3.30pm at the British Red Cross,
2 Lower Chantry Lane, Kent, CT1 1UF

Morning - business, elections, reports including an ex-detainee and bail surety.

Free Vegetarian Lunch 1-2pm

Afternoon - Speakers:
"Against the Tide" Rosa Potter, (Samphire, Dover Detainee and Ex- Detainee Support)

Rosa will talk about her experience of visiting the migrant camps in Calais, supported by a series of dramatic still photographs.

David Landau, (No One is Illegal) " Immigration Controls - A Mug's game!"
As thousands of refugees continue to drown crossing the Mediterranean, David questions the validity of immigration controls. Can any human being be illegal, simply because of where they were born?

Q & A Discussion -  After the General Election - the way forward for the Campaign for Migrants' Rights.

Please RSVP to

Williams, R (on the Application of) v SSHD

[2015] EWHC 1268 (Admin) (11 May 2015)

(SSHD can refuse a child's application for British nationality in circumstances in which the child can satisfy all other requirements but, as a result of destitution, cannot pay the required fee)

Mr Justice Hickinbottom :

1)This claim raises the following important issue: can the Secretary of State refuse a child's application for British nationality in circumstances in which the child can satisfy all other requirements but, as a result of destitution, cannot pay the required fee?

2) The Claimant challenges the Secretary of State's decision received on 17 March 2014 to reject his application to be registered as a British citizen, on the basis that the prescribed fee of £673 had not been paid, on two grounds, namely:

i) Ground 1: The Secretary of State acted outside her powers in failing to incorporate into the statutory scheme a fee exemption for applications to register British nationality by children who are in receipt of local authority assistance because of destitution.

ii) Ground 2: In not according such an exemption to the Claimant, the Secretary of State breached her duty under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") by failing properly to respect his family and/or private life; and/or her duty under article 14 read with article 8 by discriminating against the Claimant on the ground of his impecuniosity.

Ground 1 turns on the true construction of the statutory provisions under which the Secretary of State has decided not to include a fee exemption for destitute minors in the scheme. Ground 2 is necessarily, to an extent, fact-specific.

3) Before me, Stephen Knafler QC appeared for the Claimant; and James Eadie QC and William Hansen for the Secretary of State. At the outset, I thank them for their valuable contributions.

98) Conclusion
For those reasons, despite Mr Knafler's able efforts, I refuse this application.

Inquest Into Death Of Rubel Ahmed at Morton Hall IRC

Starts Monday 11 May 2015
Central Lincolnshire Coroner's Court,
The Lincoln Cathedral Centre,
17 Minster Yard, Lincoln LN2 1PX
Listed 11th to 15th May 2015
Before HM Senior Coroner Mr Stuart Fisher

26 year old Rubel Ahmed was found hanging in his room at Morton Hall Immigration Removal Centre on 5 September 2014. A few days earlier he had been informed of the Home Office's decision to remove him to Bangladesh on 8 September 2014. He was pronounced dead on 6 September 2014.

Rubel had been detained at Morton Hall since 21 July 2014 in conditions described by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons as "austere", where "detainees were inappropriately locked into their rooms at night". He was one of many immigration detainees held in former prisons. A parliamentary inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the UK, which published its report in March this year, expressed concern that immigration detainees are "increasingly being held in prison-like conditions", a practice which "would appear to contradict the Home Office's own policy of maintaining a relaxed regime". Rubel and his fellow detainees were regularly locked in their rooms for long periods during the evening and at night.

Rubel's family heard of his death around 8.00am on 6 September 2014 via a fellow detainee. Despite their desperate attempts to contact Morton Hall and pleas for confirmation of Rubel's death they were told by staff at Morton Hall that they should contact the Home Office's press office. The Home Office confirmed Rubel's death by telephone around 2.00pm that day. The circumstances of his death were confused causing further distress to his family.

Aktarun Miah, Rubel's cousin, said: "An optimistic and warm hearted individual, Rubel's swift departure has left an ever expanding hole in all our lives. We are constantly reminded of his absence and the lives of his close family have been changed forever. We now cherish Rubel in our memories.

We are anxious to learn as much as possible about the circumstances surrounding Rubel's death at the inquest. We hope that lessons may be learnt so that another family can be spared what we have had to endure."

Clare Richardson, the family's solicitor, said: "Our clients have been given cause for real concern about the conditions in which Rubel was held before his death. They hope that the Home Office and Ministry of Justice will approach the inquest with open minds, willing to learn from the evidence they hear so that practices can be made safer and more humane for all those affected by immigration detention in the future."

Deborah Coles, co-director of INQUEST said: "The culture of locking up immigration detainees in prison like conditions has been the subject of repeated criticism. Rubel's experience is sadly not unique. There have been a number of reports documenting the impact of immigration detention on a detainee's mental and physical well being with detrimental results".

INQUEST has been working with the family of Rubel Ahmed since September 2014.  The family is represented by INQUEST lawyers Group members Clare Richardson of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors and barrister Una Morris of Garden Court Chambers.

The family ask for privacy whilst the inquest is ongoing and will not be speaking to members of the press until it is concluded.

Maimuna Jawo Must Stay!

To end FGM, the Women who flee FGM Must be Protected!

Demonstrate - Wednesday 13th May

1.30pm at The Home Office

2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF

Maimuna is fighting for freedom from FGM. Her victory will be a victory for millions of women for generations who want an end to FGM, either for themselves or their daughters and granddaughters. She is seeking asylum to escape becoming a cutter, and by doing so she has given a voice to the resistance in her home country, as well as the practical opportunity for women back home to refuse FGM. But last week (after a year of ignoring the case), the Home Office sent a refusal of her fresh claim.

Maimuna is next in line to be a cutter, and is expected to train her daughter to do the same. Tradition dictates that the cutter must come from one familial lineage, so by not being there, Maimuna is stopping girls from being cut. When she came to the UK it was out of courage and determination not to take up the role following her own mother's passing. She has denied her village their cutter by leaving it behind; but rather than celebrate and support this move, the Home Office have been bent on deporting Maimuna back to face the relentless pressure from the authorities to take up the knife.

Her extensive new evidence included a BBC tv documentary visiting her home village and interviewing people who know Maimuna and that cutting is demanded of her and new expert testimony to understand the relationship of local and state authorities in enforcing FGM - all was ignored or denied. On top of that refusal, in an attempt to avoid being publicly exposed the Home Office have denied her a right to appeal in a court of law. The same government that claims it wants to 'end FGM' is directly undermining women who face the life and death choices. 

Maimuna Jawo is a leader in the movement to end FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) and a leader in Movement for Justice. Everyone who is serious about ending FGM and violence against women stands with Maimuna. Her fight is our fight.

We know that the oppressed never won rights by waiting for the powers-that-be to offer. We have to stand on our own feet and mobilise our power. Maimuna is a champion of the rights of women, against violent abuse. Join this demonstration and fight for Maimuna to stay, and continue to push forward at the frontline of the struggle to end FGM.

Theresa May and the government have pledged to end FGM but their hypocrisy is exposed by these racist decisions where women and girls who are fleeing FGM are denied asylum.

Join Us This Wednesday at an emergency demonstration against this terrible decision - Maimuna Must Stay - FGM women who flee FGM must be protected.

Sign Maimuna's Petition <>here . . . .

Movement for Justice
We march today, we march tomorrow, and we keep marching to build a new Britain: diverse, integrated and equal. We aim to win. We tell the truth about racism, sexism and anti-gay bigotry and the growing inequalities within our society. We believe that every human being is entitled to a job, to education, to food, shelter and the other necessities of life, so that every one of us can live in dignity, proud to be who we are, encouraged and able to fulfill our hopes and aspirations.

Online Petition: Save the Human Rights Act

For the Attention:

Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Justice Secretary, Michael Gove

Only 37% (less than 25% of the UK population) of a 66% turnout voted Conservative, this did not give you both a mandate for rolling the country back to the 19th Century

Please save the Human Rights Act. We rely on this law to protect us. To take it away is simply inhumane. This is not what Great Britain stands for.

Why is this important?
The act covers everyone living in the UK. The policies have been created for no reason other than to protect us as human beings. Without it any one of us could be wrongly accused of a crime, the government will be allowed to breach our privacy, and anyone could fall victim to careless decisions made by authorities. What happens to innocent until proven guilty and dignity in dying? We will ALL be affected.

How can anyone oppose any of the following:

Right to life

Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security

Freedom from slavery and forced labour

Right to a fair trial

No punishment without law

Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence

Freedom of thought, belief and religion

Freedom of expression

Freedom of assembly and association

Right to marry and start a family

Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms

Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property

Right to education

Right to participate in free elections

You can sign the Petition <here . . . .

N v D [2015] EWFC 28 (27 March 2015)

(Customary marriage in Nigeria, recognised under English law)


By her application for a declaration of marital status under section 55(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1986, N claims that she was married to D in a customary marriage ceremony in Nigeria in January 2005. D accepts that an event took place but denies that it amounted to a marriage.

Having considered extensive written evidence, heard from the couple and from eight family members (four on each side), and studied over 100 photographs of the disputed event, my conclusion is that N's application succeeds. I am satisfied that she and D and their families participated in a customary marriage ceremony on 4 January 2005 in N's tribal village in Enugu State and that, to use the words of the statute, this was at its inception a valid marriage. I find that N's account and that of her witnesses is fundamentally truthful and I reject the accounts given by D and his witnesses where they conflict on any decisive matter.

Since customary marriage is a valid form of marriage in Nigeria, the marriage is recognised under English law. It is a peculiarity of the case that neither party realised this until recently. That, however, does not alter the outcome, as I shall explain below.

My findings of fact are made on the balance of probabilities, the burden of proving a fact being on the party that alleges it. Where I describe an event as having happened, that represents my finding. I also remind myself that lies may be told for many reasons and the fact that a person lies about one thing does not mean that they are not telling the truth about another.

Mushtaq, R (application of) v Entry Clearance Officer

The choice of questions and words in ECO interviews requires care and planning. Ambiguous words and phrases are to be avoided. Furthermore, fairness will often require that the interviewer invite the subject to clarify or expand an answer or probe a response. These simple mechanisms will also illuminate the court's assessment of whether any ensuing adverse decision was preordained. The nationals of impoverished and deprived countries who have invested large sums of money and whose admission to the United Kingdom is lawful if they satisfy the requirements of the relevant legal rules are deserving of no less.

[Obiter: (i) The common law principles of procedural fairness apply to the decision making processes of Entry Clearance Officers ("ECOs").

(ii) ECO interviews serve the basic twofold purpose of enabling applications to be probed and investigated and, simultaneously, giving the applicant a fair opportunity to respond to potentially adverse matters. The ensuing decison must accord with the principles of procedural fairness.

(iii) A breach of the "Case Worker Guidance" may render the decision of an ECO unlawful. As a general rule, a challenge advanced on this basis will succeed only where Wednesbury irrationality or a material procedural irregularity is established.]

Judgment Delivered on 21 March 2015

[1] The Applicant, a national of Pakistan aged 26 years, challenges a decision of the Entry Clearance Officer of Islamabad (hereinafter the "ECO"), dated 11 April 2014, whereby the Applicant's application for a visa permitting him to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of study was refused. By order of His Honour Judge Stephen Davies, sitting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal, dated 22 September 2014, the Applicant's application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The Applicant renewed his application and, following an inter parties hearing, by order dated 09 January 2015 I granted permission on two grounds, namely whether the impugned decision was compliant with the operative guidance and whether it was harmonious with the principles of procedural fairness. As appears from what follows, I consider that the public law misdemeanour of Wednesbury irrationality also features.

[19] I make one concluding observation. The choice of questions and words in ECO interviews requires care and planning. Ambiguous words and phrases are to be avoided. Furthermore, fairness will often require that the interviewer invite the subject to clarify or expand an answer or probe a response. These simple mechanisms will also illuminate the court's assessment of whether any ensuing adverse decision was preordained. The nationals of impoverished and deprived countries who have invested large sums of money and whose admission to the United Kingdom is lawful if they satisfy the requirements of the relevant legal rules are deserving of no less.

Conclusion and Order
[20] I make an order quashing the impugned decision of the ECO. Further, subject to any representations to the contrary on the part of the Respondent:

(a) the Applicant is entitled to his costs in full; and

(b) permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is not appropriate, as

I consider this a fact specific case entailing the application of well established principles to its particular matrix.

Last updated 15 May, 2015