A Pakistani asylum seeker who claimed he would be persecuted because of his homosexuality if he was removed from the UK and returned to his home country has successfully challenged a decision to dismiss his appeal. The Inner House of the Court of Session remitted the case to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) after observing that the original decision of an FTT judge to allow an appeal by the appellant “AR” against a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the respondent) to remove him to Pakistan was prima facie “unchallengeable”.

Individuals who are granted refugee status in the United Kingdom are eligible to apply for a Refugee Travel Document, which is issued in accordance with the 1951 United Nations Convention in relation to the Status of Refugees (Article 28). The right to apply for Refugee Travel Document after being granted refugee status also extends to the refugees’ family members who are granted leave in line with the refugee under the family reunion provisions of the Immigration Rules. Currently, the holders of Refugee Travel Documents are allowed to travel visa free to many of the countries but not all within the Schengen Zone (you can find a table of countries with visa requirements for Refugee Travel Documents below). The traveller should always travel with their Travel Document and a valid UK residence permit confirming their leave as a refugee in the UK.

Copies of the CARF magazine 1991-2003 are now available as a downloadable archive on the IRR’s website – a vital resource for those interested in the history of anti-racist campaigning.

The magazine CARF was first published in 1977 as a newspaper by a local Kingston anti-fascist group and later adopted by the All London Anti-Racist Anti-Fascist Co-ordinating Committee as its publication.

It continued as an occasional newspaper under the auspices of the CARF Collective from 1977-79. From 1979-1990 the collective provided a four-page anti-racist supplement which was included in each edition of the monthly anti-fascist magazine Searchlight.

In 1991 the CARF collective, a voluntary group of anti-racists, decided to publish its own bi-monthly magazine with analysis, features, interviews, news from campaigns and a regular calendar.

The extent of Liverpool’s unique problem with homeless asylum seekers has been revealed. Liverpool is one of only two destinations in the country where failed asylum seekers can lodge a final appeal to remain in the country. Liverpool Council said that it now has a major problem based on asylum seekers who travel to the city and have their final appeal hearing rejected - and potentially end up living on the city’s streets. And town hall bosses say the problem is made far worse by the fact that they could be actually be punished for attempting to help and house such people, although this is something the government refutes.

Cllr Paul Brant is Liverpool City Council’s cabinet member for health and social care, he laid bare the extent of the problem. He said: “Liverpool is one of the few destinations where we process the final appeals for asylum claims and where people have been rejected it means they are then classified as having no recourse to public funds. “The position of the local authority is that if they are then rough sleeping because they have no income, we are banned from helping them. He suggested that the council could be fined up to £3,000 for helping them using public funds. This is something the government has taken issue with, arguing that it would never fine councils for helping people on the streets.

This was an 17% increase on the previous quarter July/Aug/September, bringing the total for 2017 to 997 the number of detainees, who went on Hunger Strike.

Data for the whole of 2016 can be found here, http://bit.ly/2u6gGhc

R (on the Application of FT) v SSHD ("Rolling Review"; Challenging Leave Granted) [2017] UKUT 331(IAC)

1. The intrinsic undesirability of and the strong general presumption against allowing a "rolling review" in judicial review proceedings whereby the Upper Tribunal admits material evidence that has not been considered by the primary decision maker are important factors in considering an application to amend grounds to challenge a supplementary or new decision (see R (Caroopen & Myrie) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 1307). However, the decision whether to allow amendments of the grounds of challenge is a case management decision taking account of all relevant considerations.
 
2. In applying the policy set out in the Competent Authority Guidance and the Discretionary Leave Guidance, the fact of the respondent having "mishandled" the case and the impact of that upon the applicant, are relevant/material considerations in determining the duration of leave to be granted to a Victim of Trafficking.
 
3. Where the respondent has regard to an earlier disengagement from treatment in considering the duration of leave to be granted, a relevant consideration is whether that disengagement from treatment was because of a failure to provide support as a VOT because of an earlier incorrect "conclusive grounds decision".
 
 
Decision: the application for judicial review is granted
 
 This judicial review application concerns the lawfulness of the duration of leave granted to the applicant, a recognised Victim of Trafficking (VOT).

Communities in some of the most dangerous corners of the world will be left without lifesaving aid because of countering violent extremism agendas. Millions of people living in countries facing famine may be hardest hit. “Countering violent extremism” is a popular concept doing the rounds in today’s humanitarian circles. It is a strategy that states are increasingly using to combat terrorism. Approaches include domestic surveillance, policing, counter-extremist messaging, and education. In more repressive countries, extreme methods include mass arrests, detention without trial, torture, disappearances, and executions. These actions target people who are considered at risk of joining extremist groups.

Sound familiar? That is because they have much in common with counter-insurgency and anti-communist strategies dating back to the Cold War. Let’s not forget that ‘Winning Hearts and Minds’ has a poor track record. The US strategy to defeat the Taliban insurgency by providing development aid in Afghanistan is a classic example.

But governments are keen to embrace the countering violence extremism concept to convince voters they are working to keep terrorists at bay. Some aid organisations are also stepping in line, especially when donors are allocating their money. But this is a dangerous road to take, and many humanitarians are reluctant to follow suit.