(Judge Orders Return of Removee)

XB v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2557 (Admin) (10 September 2015) - Mr Justice Collins presiding

1) As will become clear, the claimant has remained anonymous in this claim and will continue to do so. I have been requested not to identify by name the country of which she is a national. I shall refer to it in this judgment as Aland.

2) This claim was lodged on 24 October 2013. An interim injunction was sought to prevent the claimant's removal to Aland which was to take place on 25 October 2013. That application was refused by Andrews J and so the claimant was removed and has since remained in Aland. I shall set out the history in due course.

41. It has not been possible to arrange for a secure means of electronic presence from Aland. The best that the defendant has been able to suggest is that she goes to a third country from which she can have secure access. The defendant is not prepared to agree to allow her to enter the UK to attend in person since, Ms Giovannetti informed me, there is concern that she would abscond, having regard to her past use of false passports. Ms Lieven says that it is open to the defendant to grant temporary admission subject to controls and that in any event the concerns were groundless. It is also said by Ms Giovannetti that there are concerns that it will be said that there needs to be a delay in hearing her appeal because of her mental condition. The latter concerns are more likely to become real if the suggestion of use of a third country is followed. I am bound to say that I find that suggestion wholly unrealistic.

42) Since the certification was unlawful, the usual order would be that the claimant be returned to the UK. I do not accept Ms Giovannetti's submission that because the claimant has not been treated in a manner which breaches her Article 3 rights since being in Aland I should regard her appeal as bound to fail. There is powerful evidence from the two sources I have referred to in her favour and it will be open to the FTT to find that Section 33(6A) prevents her deportation. It is not for me to pre-judge the FTT decision.

43) Since she has an exit permit valid until some time next year, it is surely relatively simple to enable her to return. The defendant has only to agree to permit her to enter with temporary permission so that she can attend her appeal. If it is allowed, she will be able to remain here. If her appeal rights are exhausted and the decision is adverse, she will then be removed.

44) It follows that I allow this claim and direct that the defendant ensures that the claimant may enter the UK to enable her to attend her appeal.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/2557.html

No passport, No Home: Immigration and the ‘Right To Rent’

Last week, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) published its independent evaluation of the Government’s Right to Rent scheme.

Since December 1st last year, landlords in the West Midlands have been required to check the immigration status of all new adult tenants to make sure they have the ‘right to rent’, as part of a government pilot scheme brought into being by the Immigration Act 2014.

All tenants and prospective tenants in the West Midlands must now have ‘leave to remain’ in the UK and this includes anyone whose immigration status has not yet been decided because they are waiting for a new visa or a decision on their Home Office application. If a landlord flouts the new rules, they now face a fine of up to £3,000 for every ‘illegal’ adult to whom they have rented a room or property.

Read more: Charlotte Peel, Justice Gap, 08/09/2015

Dawn to Dusk Protest @ Yarl’s Wood IRC

Early morning Monday 7th September, women detainees in Yarl's Wood IRC occupied the courtyard in a powerful demonstration against the inhumanity of the racist, sexist detention system. Many are wearing the T-shirts they have been wearing for weeks, decorated with demands for freedom. Over 100 were involved, singing and chanting We Want Freedom! and Yarl's Wood Detention Centre - Shut It Down!

They are boycotting the canteen in protest against the disgusting, unhealthy food provided by Serco and expressing their anger against the travesty of 'healthcare' they get from G4S, against the detention and deportation of victims of torture and rape, victims of trafficking, pregnant women, the physically disabled and women with mental health problems.  They Emailed MPs to repeat their demand that on Thursday, when the House of Commons debates detention, they vote for the motion calling for an end to the Home Office's arbitrary, unaccountable and indefinite control of detention.     

The protesters have declared their solidarity with the fight for freedom by immigrants/refugees at Europe's borders and demanded that the Government opens the borders to the migrants at Calais. In the same spirit of bold collective action they defended a sister threatened with deportation. When immigration officers tried to disrupt the protest by seizing Eunice, from Zimbabwe, she was immediately surrounded by the rest of the women and the officers had to retreat.

EU: Five Steps to Tackle Refugee Crisis
The European Union and its 28 member states should act immediately to address the human rights crisis resulting from years of mismanaging migration and asylum, Human Rights Watch said today. With a humanitarian crisis on the Greek islands, a dysfunctional asylum system in Hungary, thousands of new arrivals in need of protection, and many deaths at EU borders, bold steps are needed at an EU summit on September 14, 2105.

“Europe is showing a staggering lack of political will and humanity to grapple with this refugee and migrant crisis,” said Judith Sunderland, associate Europe and Central Asia director. “EU leaders should be guided by the imperative to protect lives and ensure humane treatment.”
Human Rights Watch calls on all EU decision-makers at a minimum to support:
1)More safe and legal channels for people to seek asylum or find refuge in the EU
2) Fixing the EU’s broken asylum system.
3) Robust search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean
4) A permanent relocation scheme to share asylum seekers
50 Develop a list of “unsafe” countries
Read more: Human Rights Watch, 04/09/2015

Effect of Zero-Hours Contracts on Women & Young People
That this House recognises the increase in zero-hours contracts under the current Government's austerity measures; accepts the Office for National Statistics figures that show 750,000 people are on zero-hours contracts in the UK as of June 2015; acknowledges the financial constraints zero-hours contracts can put on working people who are offered an average of 10 hours less per week than set contracted workers; understands that women and young people are disproportionately affected by the trend towards zero-hours contracts, with women 25 per cent more likely than men and under-25s 2.5 times more likely to be offered no set hours in employment; and further recognises that the 35 per cent increase in 35 to 49 year olds on zero-hours contracts means financial instability for many families across the country.
House of Commons, 08/09/2015

Asylum Research Consultancy COI Update Volume 108
This document provides an update of Country Guidance case law and UKBA publications and developments in refugee producing countries  between 24 August and 7 September 2015. Volume 108  here . . .

Abbasi and Another (Visits – Bereavement – Article 8)
[2015] UKUT 463 (IAC)

[Obiter:
1. The refusal of a visa to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom for a finite period for the purpose of mourning with family members the recent death of a close relative and visiting the grave of the deceased is capable of constituting a disproportionate interference with the rights of the persons concerned under Article 8 ECHR.

2. The question of whether Article 8 applies and, if so, is breached will depend upon the fact sensitive context of the particular case.

3. The Tribunal should adopt a structured and sequential approach to the Article 8 issues.]

Reasons

1. The factual matrix of this appeal is uncontroversial. The Appellants are brothers, both nationals of Pakistan, aged 29 and 21 years respectively. They applied to the Entry Clearance Officer of Karachi (the “ ECO”) for a visa to enter the United Kingdom and remain for a period of 4 weeks. In their applications they represented that the purpose of their travel was to visit their grandfather’s grave and mourn with family members. Their applications were refused by the ECO, whose core reason for thus deciding was expressed as follows:

“ … I am not satisfied that you have accurately presented your circumstances or intentions in wishing to enter the UK. This means that I am not satisfied that only a short visit is intended or that you will leave the UK at the end of the period stated.”

This was followed by a reference to paragraph 42(i) and (ii) of the Immigration Rules. The Appellants’ mother made a similar application which was also refused but was granted upon review by the Entry Clearance Manager. As a result, her appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (“the FtT”) was not pursued.

Decision

18. Giving effect to the above findings and conclusions:

(i) We set aside the decision of the FtT.

(ii) We re-make such decision by allowing the Appellants’ appeals.

(iii) It will now be incumbent on the ECO to make a fresh decision in each case, guided by and giving effect to this judgment.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2015/463.html