veritas

Evidence by electronic means

2011-12-06T11:21:00.000+05:30

An interesting case on the use of electronic means (telephone, video link, Skype, Morse, that sort of thing) has been determined in North Shields. As the tribunal comes close to saying, it is serendipitous that it should be here where this issue would arise again, after the notorious case of R (on the application of AM (Cameroon)) v Asylum and Immigration Tribunal [2007] EWCA Civ 131.

The official headnote to this new case, Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00443 (IAC), reads as follows:

The decision whether to allow evidence to be given by electronic means is a judicial one, requiring consideration of the need to do so, the arrangements at the distant site, and the ability to assess such evidence, by reference to guidance such as that set out here.

In this case a decision had been made that a witness who could not afford to travel to North Shields would be permitted to give evidence by telephone. It was not known who had made the decision or what, if anything, they had considered or weighed in making that decision.

The Presenting Officer threw what is technically known as a hissy fit and refused to cross examine the witness. This is the equivalent of getting up and walking out if an adjournment application is refused. Ultimately this was the undoing of the Secretary of State’s appeal as it meant that the witnesses evidence was unchallenged. The smart thing to do might have been to ask a few questions such as “how do we know you are who you say you are?”

The tribunal, chaired by Deputy President Mr Ockelton, opines that in the common law there is a presumption that evidence will be given in person before the tribunal or court then goes on:

Departures from that model are likely to reduce the quality of evidence, the ability of the parties to test it, and the ability of the judge to assess it, particularly where it has to be assessed against other oral evidence. Any application to call oral evidence by electronic link therefore needs to be justified. There is a measure of agreement across common-law jurisdictions that the taking of evidence, or the hearing of submissions, in this way requires regulation and ought not to be regarded as routine.

Interestingly, from the point of view of immigration bail hearings, video linked evidence is now regarded as presumptive and routine, at least by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber powers that be, and a judicial decision that video link evidence will be permitted is certainly not made in individual cases. I’m pretty damn sure that video links are not used for bail hearings in the criminal or other courts. The liberty of mere migrants is the poor cousin to the liberty of free-born Englishmen.

It is also I think worth observing that this case opens the door to applying for special measures to enable children to give evidence in a friendly and safe environment. This would normally be considered to increase not diminish the quality of evidence given. See Chapter 4 on representing children in appeals in the recent ILPA publication Working With Refugee Children: Current Issues in Best Practice for ideas (disclosure: I wrote it).

The actual guidance given by the tribunal is given with the caveat that it amounts to minimum requirements and may well require adjustment over time:

a.      A party seeking to call evidence at an oral hearing by electronic link must notify all other parties and the Tribunal at the earliest possible stage, indicating (by way of witness statement) the content of the proposed evidence. (If the evidence is uncontested, an indication of that from the other parties may enable the witness’ evidence to be taken wholly in writing.)
b.     An application to call evidence by electronic link must be made in sufficient time before the hearing to allow it to be dealt with properly. The application should be made to the relevant judge (normally the Resident Senior Immigration Judge) at the hearing centre at which the hearing is to take place, and must give (i) the reason why the proposed witness cannot attend the hearing; (ii) an indication of what arrangements have been made provisionally at the distant site (iii) an undertaking to be responsible for any expenses incurred.
c.      The expectation ought to be that the distant site will be a court or Tribunal hearing centre, and that the giving of the evidence will be subject to on-site supervision by court or Tribunal staff.
d.     If the proposal is to give evidence from abroad, the party seeking permission must be in a position to inform the Tribunal that the relevant foreign government raises no objection to live evidence being given from within its jurisdiction, to a Tribunal or court in the United Kingdom. The vast majority of countries with which immigration appeals (even asylum appeals) are concerned are countries with which the United Kingdom has friendly diplomatic relations, and it is not for an immigration judge to interfere with those relations by not ensuring that enquiries of this sort have been made, and that the outcome was positive. Enquiries of this nature may be addressed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (International Legal Matters Unit, Consular Division). If evidence is given from abroad, a British Embassy, High Commission or Commonwealth may be able to provide suitable facilities.
e.      The application must be served on all other parties, in time for them to have a proper opportunity to respond to it.
f.       The decision whether to grant the application is a judicial one. The judge making the decision will take into account the reasons supporting the application, any response from other parties and the content of the proposed evidence, as well as of the overriding objective of the rules. If the application is granted, there may be further specific directions, which must be followed.
g.     If there is a direction for the taking of evidence by electronic link, the Tribunal will nevertheless need to be satisfied that arrangements at the distant end are, and remain, appropriate for the giving of evidence. A video link, if available, is more likely to be suitable than a telephone link. The person presiding over the Tribunal hearing must be able to be satisfied that events at the distant site are, so far as may be, within the observation and control of the Tribunal, and that there is no reason to fear any irregularity.
h.     There will need to be arrangements to ensure that all parties at the hearing, as well as the judge, have equal access to the input from the electronic link. Particular attention needs to be given to the accommodation of any interpreter.
i.       In assessing any challenged evidence, the Tribunal may have to bear in mind any disadvantages arising from the fact that it was given by electronic link, and should be ready to hear and consider submissions on that issue.
j.       Nothing in this guidance is intended to affect the existing arrangements for the hearing of bail applications by video link from secure video conferencing suites. Nor is this guidance intended to affect the arrangements for video linking of one Tribunal room to another for the purposes of hearing submissions by video link.

It is, of course, for the party seeking to rely on evidence given by electronic means to make the arrangements and pay any associated costs. It should hopefully be abundantly clear after all of the above that any applications must be carefully made in very good time and must be well planned.

INVALID APPLICATION

2011-12-06T11:16:00.000+05:30

Invalid immigration applications cause serious difficulties. The problem is that the UK Border Agency advises people not to make applications until shortly before their existing leave is due to expire. However, it often takes the Border Agency days or weeks to look at the application, by which time the person’s existing leave has expired. As long as the application was valid, this causes few difficulties because the person’s leave is automatically extended by section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 until the end of the application or appeal process. A serious problem arises where the Border Agency in their wisdom return the application as invalid: the person becomes an overstayer, commits a criminal offence by even remaining in the UK to re-submit the application, risks a re-entry ban and loses any right of appeal if the re-submitted application is unsuccessful.

There are many reasons why applications are declared invalid. In fact, it is quite difficult to get absolutely everything right. I once acted in a case where an application where it was declared invalid because the applicant had not entered a land line telephone number in the mandatory box. He had no landline. Applications are sometimes rejected because the photographs are too small, too smiley or too frowny. Submitting the incorrect fee (too much or too little does the trick) leads to automatic refusal, despite the difficulties calculating that fee when there are dependents involved. All of this would be good reason to hold the application and ask for further information or repayment, but it is not a good reason to criminalise the person concerned. Some might think that it makes such a mockery of the idea of criminal immigration offending that UKBA can hardly continue to go around saying that overstaying is a serious matter.

There are several cases where these issues have been canvassed. One of the most useful is that of Forrester, which I wrote about at the time. A handy little new case has just come out that may help some people: R (on the application of Kisuule) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2966 (Admin). In this case the application was refused on the grounds that photographs were not included at all. The applicant insisted that he was very sure he had included them. The judge sided with him and held that the application had been validly made in the first place. The Border Agency will have had to pay the claimant’s costs.

These invalidity cases are a huge waste of everyone’s time and effort, they make a mockery of a criminal offence and it is high time the Border Agency reverted to the old system where leave was automatically extended for 28 days to give an opportunity to resubmit an application.

New policy guidance on the marriage visa age of 21 to decrease at 18 good news!!!

2011-11-08T19:51:00.001+05:30

The Government has announced today that the spouse visa age will be lowered again from 21 to 18. The change will take effect as of 28 November 2011.The Minister for Immigration, Damian Green, says as follows in his ministerial announcement:

The changes in the Immigration Rules being laid before the House today are as a result of the Supreme Court judgement in R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45.

On 12 October 2011, the Supreme Court found that whilst they recognised that the Secretary of State was pursuing a legitimate and rational aim of seeking to address forced marriage, a rule (increasing the minimum marriage visa age from 18 to 21) disproportionately interfered with the Article 8 rights of those who were in genuine marriages. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided to revert to a minimum age of 18.

The changes will take effect on 28 November and will reduce the minimum age at which a person may be granted entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a sponsor, and the minimum age at which a person may sponsor such an application, from 21 to 18 years. It will also delete references to a minimum age of 18 for entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a HM Forces sponsor, and the minimum age at which a member of HM Forces may sponsor such an application. Guidance for those affected by the judgment will be published on the UK Border Agency website.

There is no place in British society for the practice of forced marriage. It is a breach of human rights and a form of violence against the victims. That is why the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will criminalise the breach of Forced Marriage Civil Protection Orders and that there will be a consultation on making forcing someone to marry an offence in its own right.

We are also investigating what more we can do to identify and protect those young people who have been placed at additional risk.

Watch out old work permit holders !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2011-11-07T09:59:00.000+05:30

Back on 6 April 2011 the UK Border Agency made a change to the settlement rules for work permit holders who had entered the UK before the Points Based System was introduced. The change required a work permit holder to be paid a certain salary in order to qualify for settlement, or Indefinite Leave to Remain. The salary required is that specified in the myriad Codes of Practice for Tier 2 of the Points Based System.

The problem since faced by many work permit holder seeking settlement after five years of living and working in the UK is that their work permit was approved for one salary, which is what they have as a consequence been paid by their employer, but suddenly, with no individual warning, that salary level is no longer sufficient and the work permit holder neither qualifies for settlement nor for an extension under Tier 2.

An announcement recently went up on the UK Border Agency website that as of 31 October 2011, work permit holders will not only need to be paid the Code of Practice salary but will need to submit certain specified documents in order to demonstrate this. Previously certification by the employer was sufficient, but no longer.

The 6 April change was clearly an unfair one in the moral sense – the rules of the game were changed without notification. Foreign workers have a potentially difficult relationship with their employer in any event, and negotiating a rise in salary might well have been difficult even had they known one was needed. However, in immigration law it is very difficult to succeed on the basis of a legitimate expectation or a fairness argument. The courts have repeatedly held that there is no legitimate expectation that the Immigration Rules will remain the same. Cases that have succeeded, like the HSMP and BAPIO challenges, were based on specific assurances that the rules would remain the same, assurances that are not normally given. I have myself struggled to come up with a robust legal solution for those facing this problem. Article 8 ECHR is the best I can offer, but I would be interested to hear if anyone has done better.

Those work permit holders coming to the end of their five years and considering applying for settlement would be well advised to make sure they have checked they are paid in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice.

New evidence in Points Based System Appeals

2011-10-28T18:47:00.000+05:30

The Upper Tribunal has reported a decision on the effect of the new section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002:

Alam (s 85A – commencement – Article 8) Bangladesh [2011] UKUT 00424 (IAC). The official headnote reads as follows:

(1) Where it applies, s. 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 precludes certain evidence from being relied on, in order to show compliance with the Immigration Rules.
(2) “Fairness” arguments concerning the application of the transitional provisions regarding s. 85A, in article 3 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011, may have a legitimate part to play in a proportionality assessment under Article 8 of the ECHR, when assessing the strength of the State’s interest in maintaining the integrity of the Immigration Rules.

This new section was brought into effect back in May in controversial circumstances: the restriction on the submission of post-decision evidence took immediate effect even in appeals that had already been lodged and were about to be heard. Changing the rules of evidence half way through an appeal is rather unfair, one might think. One of my clients had submitted the appeal bundle before the commencement order took effect, and before we even knew about it, but because the hearing was after commencement that bundle was basically redundant. The client was also deprived of the benefits of the new flexibility to request further evidence that was introduced at the time of commencement.

The Senior Immigration Judge behind the new decision, Mr Lane, is untroubled by the legality of the commencement order but notes that the fairness issues that arose might be relevant to an Article 8 human rights assessment. He points out that the legality of the commencement order could have been challenged in the High Court but was not, at least in this case (I’m sure someone has lodged such a challenge). The tribunal does have jurisdiction to allow an appeal on the basis that a decision was not in accordance with the law, but generally prefers not to exercise its muscles in this way. To be fair, the Court of Appeal did say in EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2009] EWCA Civ 630 that this was probably right: lawfulness challenges could be entertained in the tribunal but the vires of a piece of secondary legislation ought to be challenged in the High Court, which was the more appropriate venue.

In the real world, the tribunal is a far more accessible and cost effective means of challenging a decision, but this is not enough of a reason for the tribunal to accept jurisdiction in such cases, regrettably.

Goodbye paragraph 395C? UK Immigration

2011-10-15T15:54:00.002+05:30

It is difficult to take May seriously after Catgate. She cannot really be expected to check everything that is placed in front of her by her speech writers, but the pledge on changing the rules was unusually specific. I’ve been wondering what might follow, and my guess is that paragraph 395C will be scrapped. A Presenting Officer suggested to me that it might go the other day when we chatting before court, and this would perhaps arguably fulfil May’s promise.

The rule, very recently slightly amended, currently reads as follows:395C. Before a decision to remove under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is given, regard will be had to all the relevant factors known to the Secretary of State including:

(i) age;

(ii) length of residence in the United Kingdom;

(iii) strength of connections with the United Kingdom;

(iv) personal history, including character, conduct and employment record;

(v) domestic circumstances;

(vi) previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted;

(vii) compassionate circumstances;

(viii) any representations received on the person’s behalf.

In the case of family members, the factors listed in paragraphs 365-368 must also be taken into account.

The flaw is that, as you can see, the paragraph makes no mention whatsoever of human rights. Arguments under this rule have a completely different legal basis additional to and more generous than human rights arguments. I don’t think this sort of legal nicety will bother May and her speech writers, however. The arguments made under paragraph 395C are basically the same as made under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Paragraph 395C was a surprisingly generous addition to the rules when it was introduced in 2006 following the deportation debacle, and it also, by a legal quirk, gives huge discretion to immigration judges to make up their own mind about how to dispose of a case. That is the very last thing that the last two governments seem to want – allowing judges to judge cases on their merit under national and international law.

We Liasioning and advising for clients who got refused for entry clearance to the UK across all visa categories as Dependent refusal, business refusal, PBS refusal, Visitor refusal.

Some of the areas we specialised include:

1. REFUSAL UNDER SECTION OF 6(A) TO 319(K)
2. REFUSAL UNDER GENERAL GROUND OF SECTION 320 TO 324
3. APPEAL OF RIGHT TO FIGHT CASE UNDER SECTION 84(1) (B) (C)
4. UNLAWFUL DECISION AS PER SECTION OF 19B OF RACE RELATION
5. UNLAWFUL DECISION AS PER SECTION OF 6 OF HUMAN RIGHTS
6. AIT APPEALS FOR ANY TYPE OF REJECTION CASES

WE ACCEPTING ONLY REJECTION CASES NOT FRESH APPLICATIONS.

We kept all information private and confidential.

For further information on Visa refusal to the United Kingdom,
Please call us on 079-40099917 visit us at www.visarejection.com

Regards,
VERITAS THE TEAM
c/o Veritas Immigration and Educatin Pvt. Ltd.
914,Sahajanand Shopping Centre
Opp. Swaminarayan Temple
Shahibaug,AHMEDBAD - 380004.
Gujarat (INDIA)

VISIT US AT : WWW.VISAREJECTION.COM
MAIL US : info@visarejection.com
CALL US : 00917940099917
REAL CASE STUDIES :
http://www.facebook.com/pages/UK-Visa-wwwvisarejectioncom/120007571394382

Five years of immigration detention ruled unlawful- UK

2011-10-11T12:46:00.000+05:30

In the case of R (on the application of Sino) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2249 (Admin) (25 August 2011) John Howell QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, held that the entire period of detention of an Algerian man was unlawful, a period of five years. The judge also held that evidence presented by three named Home Office officials was false and misleading, concluding as follows:

What this sorry saga appears to reveal is a disturbing level of incompetent ignorance in what is apparently the team in the Home Office and the “Family Tracing Unit” in Algiers who are supposed to specialise in investigations to support applications to the Algerian authorities for ETDs.

The decision to detain was found to have been at least influenced by the secret policyof detaining all foreign national prisoners come what may. Indeed, this looks like a classic example of the harm that policy caused. Five years loss of liberty for committing no crime is simply awful (to be clear, he had committed a string of earlier offences but had served his time for those offences by the time immigration detention began). It really does amount to throwing away the key.

The most significant finding by the judge in legal terms is that a failure to co-operate with removal does not of itself justify immigration detention. The judge concludes that there was never any realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time. This is surely borne out by the astounding length of the ensuing detention. The judge also holds that the Home Office had not acted with reasonable diligence and expedition in this case

A number of issues around removals specifically to Algeria also emerge in the judgment, including that the Algerian ‘population database’ that the Home Office claimed to be searching basically does not exist.

The judgment closes with these comments:

235. Many people may well be very concerned that an individual, who is the subject of a deportation order that was made because his removal would be conducive to the public good, has been able to frustrate his deportation by deliberately not co-operating with the Secretary of State for more than five years. They may well be outraged that such an individual may be entitled to any substantial damages for being detained because he was evidently determined to frustrate any efforts to remove him and the Secretary of State could not arrange his removal without his assistance. Nonetheless, however unattractive in the circumstances this Claimant’s claim for damages for the loss of his liberty may be, an individual’s failure to co-operate with the Secretary of State in facilitating his removal is not a justification in itself for any immigration detention. Such an individual’s failure to co-operate without reasonable excuse renders him liable on conviction on indictment to up to 12 months imprisonment. Immigration detention may only be justified if there is a realistic prospect of removing an individual within a reasonable period taking into account his failure to co-operate. In this case there was no such prospect. The Claimant is according entitled at least prima facie to damages for false imprisonment, which are more than nominal, to be assessed.

236. I have not considered, however, whether any damages for loss of liberty to which the Claimant may otherwise be entitled fall to be reduced or extinguished by his failure to mitigate his own loss by deliberately not co-operating with the Secretary of State when had he done so he could have been removed and not detained. Nor have I considered whether, but for his detention, he would not have been at liberty in any event, but rather in prison (and, if so, for what periods), given the likelihood of his re-offending. Nor have I considered what damages might be awarded in this case.

We Liasioning and advising for clients who got refused for entry clearance to the UK across all visa categories as Dependent refusal, business refusal, PBS refusal, Visitor refusal.

Some of the areas we specialised include:

1. REFUSAL UNDER SECTION OF 6(A) TO 319(K)
2. REFUSAL UNDER GENERAL GROUND OF SECTION 320 TO 324
3. APPEAL OF RIGHT TO FIGHT CASE UNDER SECTION 84(1) (B) (C)
4. UNLAWFUL DECISION AS PER SECTION OF 19B OF RACE RELATION
5. UNLAWFUL DECISION AS PER SECTION OF 6 OF HUMAN RIGHTS
6. AIT APPEALS FOR ANY TYPE OF REJECTION CASES

WE ACCEPTING ONLY REJECTION CASES NOT FRESH APPLICATIONS.

We kept all information private and confidential.

For further information on Visa refusal to the United Kingdom,
Please call us on 079-40099917 visit us at www.visarejection.com

Regards,
VERITAS THE TEAM
c/o Veritas Immigration and Educatin Pvt. Ltd.
914,Sahajanand Shopping Centre
Opp. Swaminarayan Temple
Shahibaug,AHMEDBAD - 380004.
Gujarat (INDIA)

VISIT US AT : WWW.VISAREJECTION.COM
MAIL US : info@visarejection.com
CALL US : 00917940099917
REAL CASE STUDIES :
http://www.facebook.com/pages/UK-Visa-wwwvisarejectioncom/

120007571394382

Website of fake university is removed

2011-10-10T15:58:00.004+05:30

An investigation carried out by Somerset County Council has seen the fake 'Glastonbury University' website removed.

It was feared that the website, which promoted a fictitious university, was being used to target unsuspecting applicants, particularly in the Far East. A London university reported the site after receiving an application from a student who claimed to have a degree from Glastonbury University.

Investigations by Somerset County Council trading standards officers have resulted in the domain name and site being removed by specialist Metropolitan Police officers.

The investigation also revealed that the address given on the website for the university is actually an empty office building in the centre of town, and the impressive glass building featured on the site is in fact a library belonging to the University of Leicester.

The trading standards investigation involved contact with overseas companies and regulators including the Florida FBI, as well as correspondence with central government, and culminated in the domain name's removal from the world wide web. This was achieved in co-operation with the police central e-crime unit of the Metropolitan Police.

2011-10-06T11:33:00.000+05:30

Unlawful retention of passport by ECO

The case of R (on the Application of Atapattu) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1388 (Admin) (27 May 2011) is an important case that I was just too busy to write up at the time but to which a return is worthwhile. It concerns the unlawful retention of a passport by an Entry Clearance Officer and a claim for damages for conversion. Conversion is a tort under section1 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and is basically akin to theft. The facts were, in short, that the claimant was a Sri Lankan merchant seaman who had successfully applied to undertake a qualification int he UK that would lead to his becoming a ships master. He was twice refused entry clearance but an appeal against the second refusal was allowed. He submitted his passport for endorsement with entry clearance in January 2010 but, despite persistent chasing, the passport was not returned until late August 2010, after the commencement of legal proceedings. The heads of claim were (i) conversion, (ii) negligence and (iii) a breach of human rights. The claimant succeeded on the first of these, conversion, only. The claimant sought damages on the basis that (i) the retention of his passport meant that he was unable to work in the merchant navy, a passport being essential to that line of work, and (ii) that the retention had prevented his studies and therefore caused loss of enhanced earnings as a ships master. The law on conversion is set out at paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment and you may be interested to take a look at the requirements: 60. Conversion can be committed in a myriad of circumstances. The most relevant category of conversion, for present purposes, is described in Clerk & Lindsell as “wrongful retention” and explained, at §17-22, under the heading “Conversion by keeping or refusal to return“, as follows: “Conversion by keeping: demand and refusal The ordinary way of showing a conversion by unlawful retention of property is to prove that the defendant having it in his possession, refused to surrender it on demand. Indeed such a demand is generally a precondition of the right of action for detention1: the mere unpermitted possession of another’s chattel is not as such a conversion of it”. Clerk & Lindsell continues, at §17-24: “Demand must be unconditional and specific The demand should be unconditional in its terms, …. ,. If the demand is unclear or equivocal, for example because it is merely a request for “immediate commencement of the process of return” of goods, it may not be enough.” Then at §17-25 Clerk & Lindsell deals with refusal as follows: “Refusal must be unconditional. The refusal must also be unconditional115. A person on whom a demand for goods is made may not have them immediately available even though they are under his control;… he cannot be required to act at a moment’s notice, or refuse at his peril. . …. a person in possession of another’s goods has the right to a reasonable opportunity to check whether the person asking for them is really entitled to them.” Footnote 115 highlights the issue in the present case, in the following terms: “Mires v. Solebay (1678) 2 Mod 242. In Schwarzschild v. Harrods[2008] EWHC 521 (QB)… the court seemingly thought that mere inaction in the face of a demand could not be a refusal, but this must be doubtful. A defendant in possession can hardly be allowed to stymie conversion proceedings by simply doing and saying nothing.” Finally at §17-26, Clerk & Lindsell still under the heading of “wrongful retention” addresses delay as follows: “Delay in complying with demand. A bailee or person in possession of the goods of another must normally deliver them up forthwith on demand. …. delay in complying with the demand will not only render the defendant liable in conversion, but will normally make him an insurer of the goods in respect of all subsequent damage on the basis that he is thereafter in breach of bailment … . However in the event of doubt as to the claimant’s entitlement the defendant is entitled to a reasonable time to make enquiries. … But, once the reasonable time has elapsed the defendant must hand over the goods. If he does not do so he will be liable in conversion and in addition the goods will be entirely at his risk thereafter.” Mitchell v Ealing LBC [1979] 1 QB 1 is cited as authority for these propositions. 61. Indeed, the case where the goods are lost or destroyed (rather than merely kept) is also identified by Clerk & Lindsell as a distinct category of conversion: see §17-20. At common law, where a defendant, following a demand, failed to return goods, because the goods had been lost or destroyed, the position was as follows. First, if the goods had been lost before demand (or before the lapse of a reasonable time after demand), then the defendant was only liable if the goods were lost as a result of the defendant’s own negligence. The claimant had a claim for breach of bailment and also for detinue. Secondly, if the goods had been lost after the lapse of a reasonable time following demand, then the defendant was strictly liable for their loss; here the claimant had, at least, a claim for detinue. This strict liability for loss after demand was commonly referred to “liability as an insurer”. Thirdly, in either event, there was no claim for conversion, because there was no voluntary act by the defendant. As a result of the abolition of detinue in the 1977 Act, s.2(2) was introduced to make the bailee liable in (statutory) conversion in this situation. In this case the claimant had written to the ECO demanding return of the passport, which belonged to him, the claimant. The ECO had simply ignored all such correspondence and only returned the passport after the commencement of legal proceedings. The claim for conversion was therefore made out. I think a special mention goes to Bojana Asanovic of Mitre House Chambers, who has successfully run an interesting and innovative argument in this case.

hindi and english indian politics

2011-09-28T19:12:00.000+05:30

भारत कॆ उच्च कक्षाकॆ भ्रष्टाचारी नॆताऒ हिन्दी भाषा अच्छी तरॆह बॊल शकतॆ है, फीर भी, पार्लामॆन्ट और इन्टॆरव्यु मॆ अग्रॆजी भाषा मॆ ही बॊलतॆ है, जॊ भारत की 90% प्रजा समज नही शकती, और 10% अग्रॆजी जाननॆ वालॊमॆ सॆ ज्यादतर‌ सरकारी नॊकरी वालॆ हॊतॆ है, और 90% सरकारी नॊकरॊ भ्रष्ट हॊतॆ है, 10% इमानदार नॊकर इमानदारी सॆ काम करतॆ हॆ, मगर रॊजीरॊटी कॆ लियॆ भ्रष्टाचार का विरॊध नही कर शकतॆ, इस तरह भ्रष्ट नॆताऒ हीन्दी टीवी समाचारकॆ इन्टॆरव्यु मॆ भी ऎक हिन्दी बॊलता हॆ तॊ दुसरा अग्रॆजी! पुरॆ भारत कॆ बच्चॆ सॆ लॆकर कॆ बुढॆ तक, सभी लॊग हिन्दी फिल्मॊ और गीतॊ की वजह सॆ, हिन्दी बॊल शकतॆ हॆ, समज शकतॆ हॆ, मगर अनपढ लॊग हिन्दी अखबार पढ नही शकतॆ, मगर हिन्दी शमज शकतॆ है उनकी, समाचार की तलप सिर्फ हिन्दी टी वी मिडिया ही पुरी कर शकती है, आज डि***वरी और नॆशनल जिऒग्राफी जॆसी विष्व कक्षा की उच्च टी वी चॆनलॊ भी, अग्रॆजीका हिन्दी का हिन्दी भाषामॆ विवरण करकॆ दिखाती है, इन लॊगॊमॆ भारतिय लॊगॊ कॆ लियॆ पारदर्शियता है, क्यॊकि इन लॊगॊकॊ भारतिय लॊगॊसॆ कुछ छिपाना नही हॆ, तॊ भारत कॆ मन्त्रीऒ, और अन्य उच्च अदिकारी और विशॆघ्यकॊ टीवी चॆनलॊ पर अग्रॆजी बॊल कर क्या दिखाना चाहतॆ है? क्या अग्रॆजी बॊलनॆ वाला बहुत ग्यानी, या बुध्धीजीवी हॊता है?,,,,,अग्रॆजी बॊलनॆ और समजनॆ कॆ लियॆ, भारतकॆ किसी जन्गल मॆ सॆ गवार, या शहॆरमॆ सॆ अनपढ अरॆ ईन्गलॆन्ड अमॆरिका और ऒस्ट्रॆलिया और दुनिया कॆ अन्य दॆशॊ का जाडु मारनॆ वाला, अनपढ, गवार, लॊफर, चॊर, डाकु, लुटॆरा, लुच्चा, और भ्रष्ट‌ भी अग्रॆजी बॊल शकता है और शमज शकता है, तॊ क्या वॊ सब बुध्धीजीवी हॊ गयॆ???,,,, हमारॆ जॊ भी नॆता और बुध्धिजीवी भरतिय हिन्दी टीवी चॆनल पर अग्रॆजी भाषामॆ बात करतॆ है, वॊ अभिमानी और भ्रष्ट हॊतॆ है, इन लॊगॊ कॊ भ्रष्ट शाबित करनॆ कॆ लियॆ हिन्दी चॆनलॊ पर, अग्रॆजी भाषा बॊलतॆ है, यॆ भ्रष्टता का पहॆला पुरावा है,,,, अग्रॆजी भाषाकॊ पढनॆमॆ प्राथमिकता दॆना बहॊत जरुरी है, कही भी अग्रॆजीमॆ चर्चा करॊ, बात करॊ, मगर भारत कि 90% प्रजा अग्रॆजी समजती नही हॆ,हिन्दी टुटीफुटी भी समज शकती है, तॊ हिन्दी टीवी चॆनल कॆ समाचार‌ मिडिया पर बुध्धिजिविऒ कॊ हिन्दी भाषाका ही प्रयॊग करना चाहियॆ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Immigration Adviser Held Over Visa Fraud

2011-09-23T22:26:00.004+05:30

Three people have been arrested on suspicion of immigration fraud following a Sky News investigation into sham marriages.

UK Border Agency police visited an address

in Wembley and detained a Home Office licensed immigration adviser and his wife, while a third person was detained at a separate address.

Jayesh Patel was first arrested in May 2010 after a Sky report revealed he had offered to sell a groom for £12,500 to an undercover reporter who wanted to avoid immigration controls.

Information found on Patel's computer suggested he was involved in Tier 1 visa fraud by topping-up applicants' legitimate earnings with bogus salaries.

Tier 1 visas were designed to attract highly-skilled workers from outside the European Union, such as doctors or scientists, who could contribute most to the UK economy.

Migrants coming to the UK under this scheme did not even need a job offer before leaving their country of origin.

Patel offered to sell a groom to an undercover reporter

But applicants did need to score 75 points under the Tier 1 system. Points were awarded for criteria including the ability to speak English and proof of earnings.

But low-skilled applicants intent on defrauding the system sometimes used bogus employment histories and payslips issued through fake companies set up by corrupt solicitors and immigration advisers.

The Tier 1 scheme did not deliver as the Government hoped; only a third of successful Tier 1 applicants went on to obtain highly-skilled work and in April 2011 the Tier 1 visa route was closed.

Monday's arrests are the latest attempts by the Home Office to apprehend immigration fraud.

Immigration Minister Damian Green told Sky News: "We've been concentrating hard on the big facilitators, the international criminals who organise this traffic.

"Today's arrests show the UK Border Agency will investigate allegations of immigration fraud and take decisive action to apprehend suspects involved in abuse of the system."

Patel was arrested as part of ongoing investigations into immigration fraud

Detective Inspector Robert Coxhead, who leads the West London immigration crime team, told Sky News: "My team have been dealing with a number of these cases in the last year and these offences are viewed very seriously by the courts.

"Hopefully the success we've had will send a clear message to anyone involved in this type of fraud."

:: UK Border Agency police have run several operations in London against similar attempts at immigration fraud:

Operation Gilberton 2010: Indian suspect convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison. A further eight beneficiaries were convicted and £271,000 of assets were seized.

Operation Coffeeville 2010: Two Indian immigration advisers were arrested and £332,000 cash was seized. Both subjects had obtained duplicate passports and fled to India. Nine further co-conspirators were arrested and four beneficiaries charged.

Operation Inkspell 2011: Indian immigration adviser convicted and sentenced to four and a half years. Thirteen others were arrested, most of whom have pleaded guilty. Assets worth approximately £900,000 confiscated.

narendra modi

2011-09-22T11:21:00.001+05:30

क्या नरेन्द्र मोदी का विरोध करने वाले, वर्तमान यूपीए सरकार से खुश हैं? (Micro Post)तीन दिवसीय उपवास और सदभावना मिशन प्रारम्भ करके नरेन्द्र मोदी ने 2012 के गुजरात चुनावों और 2014 के लोकसभा चुनावों का बिगुल फ़ूँक दिया है। 2012 में तो गुजरात में उनकी चौथी बार वापसी होगी ही, इसमें कोई शंका नहीं है… परन्तु 2014 में प्रधानमंत्री के रूप में उनकी ताजपोशी थोड़ा मुश्किल सफ़र है, सेकुलर काँटों भरी राह है…मैं नरेन्द्र मोदी के विरोधियों से कुछ पूछना चाहता हूँ -1) यदि वे नरेन्द्र मोदी के विरोधी हैं तो इ***ा मतलब यह लगाया जाए कि वे कांग्रेस के समर्थक हैं?2) यदि कांग्रेस समर्थक नहीं हैं तो "भोंदू युवराज" के इस सशक्त विकल्प को अपना समर्थन क्यों नहीं देते?3) यदि मोदी को समर्थन नहीं दे ***ते इ***ा मतलब तो यही है कि आप महंगाई, कुशासन, आतंकवाद, भ्रष्टाचार से पीड़ित नहीं हैं।4) मीडिया के जो मित्र हैं, क्या वे यह बता ***ते हैं कि यदि भोंदू युवराज नहीं, नरेन्द्र मोदी भी नहीं तो फ़िर कौन?5) क्या मोदी विरोधियों के पास नरेन्द्र मोदी से बेहतर प्रशा***, प्रधानमंत्री के पद हेतु उपलब्ध है?6) यदि उनके पास मोदी का विकल्प नहीं है, और वे सपने बुन रहे हैं कि शायद कांग्रेस में कोई चमत्कार हो जाएगा और यह पार्टी एकदम सुधर जाएगी… या फ़िर तीसरे मोर्चे नामक "भानुमति के कुनबे" द्वारा कांग्रेस को समर्थन देने से देश में सुशासन आ जाएगा तो निश्चित ही वे लोग मुंगेरीलाल हैं…तात्पर्य यह है कि नरेन्द्र मोदी के विरोधी स्पष्ट जवाब दें कि 2014 में यदि मोदी नहीं, तो फ़िर कौन? यदि मोदी नहीं, तो क्या वे लोग कांग्रेस की सत्ता लगातार तीसरी बार सहन करने की क्षमता रखते हैं? राहुल गाँधी को प्रधानमंत्री स्वीकार कर ***ते हैं? दस साल तक सोनिया, मनमोहन, चिदम्बरम, पवार, सिब्बल, लालू को झेलने के बाद अगले पाँच साल भी इन्हें झेलने की क्षमता है? यदि नहीं… तो फ़िर मोदी का विरोध क्यों? विरोध करना ही है तो ***ारात्मक विरोध करो… मोदी का कोई अन्य "सशक्त और व्यावहारिक विकल्प" पेश करो… कब तक सेकुलरिज़्म का घण्टा बजाते रहोगे?

आजकल मुस्लिम धर्म गुरुओं की रुचि धर्म में कम राजनीति में अधिक हो रही है. यही सारे फसाद की जड़ है. धर्मगुरु मुसलमानों को धर्म के साथ विकास की मुख्यअ धारा में जोड़ने के प्रयास न कर के राजनीति में अपनी पैठ बनाने के प्रयास कर रहे हैं ताकि अपने तथा अपने परिवार का कल्यांण किया जा ***े, मुसलमान कौम जितनी पिछड़ती रहे उतना ही अच्छाक है. नरेंद्र मोदी मुसलमान नहीं है फिर मौलाना साहब मोदी को टोपी क्योंल पहनाना चाह रहे थे, हर व्यछक्ति अपना धर्म मानने तथा तदनुसार वेश धारण करने के लिये स्वोतंत्र है. मोदी टोपी पहन लेते या मौलाना तिलक लगा लेते तो क्याय देश में या मोदी के गुजरात में अमन चैन कायम हो जाता. मौलाना ने जो घटिया हरकत की है उ***े लिये उनका इतना अपमान बहुत कम है. कुछ और होना था. मौलाना ने अपनी नेतागिरी चमकाने के लिये देश के धर्म निरपेक्ष स्व रूप पर प्रहार किया है, उन धर्म गुरु जो धर्म कर्म छोड़ कर राजनीति की मलाई उड़ाने में लगे हैं, उन्हेंक सबक मिल ***े. कम से कम इस मामले में नरेंद्र मोदी बधाई के पात्र हैं जिन्होंेने छद्म धर्म निरपेक्षता दिखाने से इनकार कर दिया

एक सबसे बड़ा प्रश्न, आखिर सारी दुनिया में मुसलमानों को ही क्यूँ दूसरे धर्मों से प्राब्लम है, क्या ये लोग लोगों के साथ घुलमिल करके रहना नहीं जानते. ये लोग क्यूँ हमेशा हर चीज को मार काट के हल करना चाहते हैं. आखिर क्यूँ किसी भी आतंकवादी हमले में इन्ही का नाम आता है. चाहे वह अमेरिका में हुआ हो या फिर काबुल में, या फिर पाकिस्तान में, या फिर लन्दन में. ये लोग क्यूँ हमेशा दूसरों के साथ झगड़ने को क्यूँ तैयार रहते हैं. सारी दुनिया में इन्ही का नाम क्यूँ बदनाम है. अमेरिका का सबसे करीबी मित्र पाकिस्तान है फिर भी अमेरिकी कम्पनियों ने निवेश के लिये भारत को चुना. आज भारतीय मुसलमानों की स्थिति पाकिस्तान में रहने वाले लोगों से कहीं बेहतर है. अपने दिल पे हाथ रख के ये खुद सोचें, क्या उनका खुदा ये चाहते थे उनका नाम सारी दुनिया में बदनाम हो, नहीं. धर्म कभी दूसरों को मारना काटना नहीं सिखाता है, वह तो लोगों को सही जीवन जीने का रास्ता दिखाता है. इसलिए अपने विकास और अच्छी जिंदगी के लिये उस भगवान को धन्यवाद दें और सबके साथ घुलमिल के रहना सीखें, इसी में सबकी भलाई है. ऐसे छोटे छोटे सब्जेक्ट पे लड़ने से कुछ नहीं मिलनेवाला.

गढॆ मुर्दॆ उखाडकर इमाम जैसॆ बददिमाग लॊग माहौल कॊ तपिश दॆनॆ की बॆहद गलत हरकत कर रहॆ हैं. अगर ईमानदारी और निष्पक्षता सॆ इतिहास का अवलॊकन किया जाय तब पता लगॆगा कि किसनॆ कि***ॆऊपर ज्यादा अत्याचार कियॆ. इसीलिए इमाम साहब दॆश कॆ लॊगॊं कॊ इन्सानीयत की सीख दीजियॆ ताकिआगॆ ऎसॆ हादसॆ वापस नहीं दॊहरायॆ जाय, अगर आप कुछ बददिमाग नॆताऒं या शख्सॊं की तरह‌निगॆटिव बॊल बॊलकर माहौल कॊ खराब करतॆ है तॊ फिर आप काही कॆ सन्त हैं i

नरॆन्द्र मॊदी नॆ इमाम सा. का शाल स्वीकार किया यह नज़र नही आ रहा है मे मुस्लिम नॆताऒ सॆ पुछता हु कि क्या वॊ तिलक लगवाऎगॆ.बॆमतलब का बखॆडा न करकॆ दॆश हित का काम करॆ.

Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) is now open

2011-09-21T13:51:00.000+05:30

The Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) category of the UK's points-based system is now open for applications.

The new category is for people who are internationally recognised as world-leading or potential world-leading talent in the fields of science and the arts.

Applications under Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) must be made from abroad. You cannot apply if you are already in the UK.

To find out whether and how you can apply for a Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) visa, see the Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) section of this website.

Visa application scam exposed

2011-09-21T13:48:00.000+05:30

We are aware of a scam in which the name of the former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, Sir David Normington, (who is now First Civil Service Commissioner and Commissioner for Public Appointments) has been used to allegedly sponsor or lend credibility to entry clearance and visa applications.

Entry clearance applicants should be aware that Sir David does not provide support of this nature, nor does he have any connection with anyone who claims that he is a sponsor.

A letter to rahul gandhi and sonia gandhi congress narendra modi

2011-09-21T13:40:00.001+05:30

A daring letter by an IIT'an to Rahul Gandhi. Plz read and repost.

by Amogha Abbur on Thursday, 25 August 2011 at 00:19

A REPLY LETTER WRITTEN BY:

NITIN GUPTA (RIVALDO)

B. Tech, IIT Bombay

ON Rahul Gandhi: "I feel ashamed to call myself an INDIAN after seeing

what has happened here in UP".

Dear Rahul,

YOU REALLY WANT TO FEEL ASHAMED???????

But don't be disappointed, I would give you ample reasons to feel

ashamed... You really want to feel Ashamed..?

* First Ask Pranav Mukherjee, Why isn't he giving the details of

the account holders in the Swiss Banks.

* Ask your Mother, Who is impeding the Investigation against

Hasan Ali?

* Ask her, Who got 60% Kickbacks in the 2G Scam ?

* Kalamadi is accused of a Few hundred Crores, Who Pocketed the

Rest in the Common Wealth Games?

* Ask Praful Patel what he did to the Indian Airlines? Why did

Air India let go of the Profitable Routes ?

* Why should the Tax Payer pay for the Air India losses, when

you intend to eventually DIVEST IT ANYWAY!!!

* Also, You People can't run an Airline Properly. How can we

expect you to run the Nation?

* Ask Manmohan Singh. Why/What kept him quiet for so long?

* Are Kalmadi and A Raja are Scapegoats to save Big Names like

Harshad Mehta was in the 1992 Stock Market Scandal ?

* Who let the BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY Accused go Scot Free? (20,000

People died in that Tragedy)

* Who ordered the State Sponsored Massacre of SIKHS in 84?

* Please read more about, How Indira Gandhi pushed the Nation

Under Emergency in 76-77, after the HC declared her election to Lok

Sabha Void!

* WHY ONLY HIGHLIGHT THIS ARREST?

Dear Rahul, to refresh your memory, you were arrested/detained by the

FBI the BOSTON Airport in September 2001.

You were carrying with you $ 1,60,000 in Cash. You couldn't explain why

you were carrying so much Cash.

(Incidentally He was with his Columbian girlfriend Veronique Cartelli,

ALLEGEDLY, the Daughter of Drug Mafia. 9 HOURS he was kept at the

Airport. Later then freed on the intervention of the then Prime Minister

Mr. Vajpayee.. FBI filed an equivalent of an FIR in US and released him.

When FBI was asked to divulge the information, by Right/Freedom to

Information Activists about the reasons Rahul was arrested ...

FBI asked for a NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE from Rahul Gandhi.

So Subramaniyam Swami wrote a Letter to Rahul Gandhi, " If you have

NOTHING to HIDE, Give us the Permission"

HE NEVER REPLIED!)

Why did that arrest not make Headlines Rahul? You could have gone to the

Media and told, "I am ashamed to call myself an INDIAN?".

Or is it that, you only do like to highlight Symbolic Arrests (like in

UP) and not Actual Arrests (In BOSTON)

Kindly Clarify.....In any case, you want to feel ashamed, Read Along...

YOUR MOTHER'S SO CALLED SACRIFICE OF GIVING UP PRIME MINISTERSHIP in

2004.

According to a Provision in the Citizenship Act, A Foreign National who

becomes a Citizen of India, is bounded by the same restrictions,

which an Indian would face, If he/she were to become a Citizen of Italy.

(Condition based on principle of reciprocity)

Now Since you can't become a PM in Italy, Unless you are born there.

Likewise an Italian Citizen can't become Indian PM,

unless He/She is not born here!

Dr. SUBRAMANIYAM SWAMI (The Man who Exposed the 2G Scam) sent a letter

to the PRESIDENT OF INDIA bringing the same to his Notice.

PRESIDENT OF INDIA sent a letter to Sonia Gandhi to this effect, 3:30

PM, May 17th, 2004.

Swearing Ceremony was scheduled for 5 PM the same Day. Manmohan Singh

was brought in the Picture at the last moment to Save Face!!

Rest of the SACRIFICE DRAMA which she choreographed was an EYE WASH!!!

In fact Sonia Gandhi had sent, 340 letters, each signed by different MP

to the PRESIDENT KALAM, supporting her candidacy for PM.

One of those letters read, "I Sonia Gandhi, elected Member from Rai

Bareli, hereby propose Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister."

So SHE was Pretty INTERESTED! Until She came to know the Facts! She

didn't make any Sacrifice, It so happens that SONIA GANDHI

couldn't have become the PM of INDIA that time.

You could be Ashamed about that Dear Rahul!! One Credential Sonia G had,

Even that was a HOAX!

THINK ABOUT YOURSELF.

You go to Harvard on Donation Quota. ( Hindujas Gave HARVARD 11 million

dollars the same year, when Rajiv Gandhi was in Power)

Then you are expelled in 3 Months/ You Dropped out in 3 Months....

(Sadly Manmohan Singh wasn't the Dean of Harvard that time, else

you might have had a chance... Too Bad, there is only one Manmohan

Singh!)

Then Why did you go about lying about being Masters in Economics from

Harvard .. before finally taking it off your Resume upon questioning

by Dr. SUBRAMANIYAM SWAMI (The Gentlemen who exposed the 2G Scam)

At St. Stephens.. You Fail the Hindi Exam. Hindi Exam!!!

And you are representing the Biggest Hindi Speaking State of the

Country?

SONIA GANDHI's EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Sonia G gave a sworn affidavit as a Candidate that She Studied English

at University of Cambridge

According to Cambridge University, there is no such Student EVER! Upon

a Case by Dr. Subramaniyam Swami filed against her, She subsequently

Dropped the CAMBRIDGE CREDENTIAL from her Affidavit.

Sonia Gandhi didn't even pass High School. She is just 5th class Pass!

In this sense, She shares a common Educational Background with her 2G

Partner

In Crime, Karunanidhi.

You Fake your Educational Degree, Your Mother Fakes her Educational

Degree. And then you go out saying, " We want Educated Youth into

Politics!"

WHY LIE ABOUT EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS?

Not that Education is a Prerequisite for being a great Leader, but then

you shouldn't have lied about your qualifications!

You could feel a little ashamed about Lying about your Educational

Qualifications. You had your reasons I know, Because in India, WE

RESPECT

EDUCATION!

But who cares about Education, When you are a Youth Icon!!

YOUTH ICON

You traveled in the Local Train for the first time at the Age of 38.

You went to some Villages as a part of Election Campaign. And You won a

Youth Icon!! ... That's why You are my Youth Icon.

For 25 Million People travel by Train Every day. You are the First

Person to win a Youth Icon for boarding a Train.

Thousands of Postmen go to remotest of Villages. None of them have yet

gotten a Youth Icon. You were neither YOUNG Nor ICONIC!

Still You became a Youth Icon beating Iconic and Younger Contenders like

RAHUL DRAVID.

SURNAME

Shakespeare said, What's in a Name?

Little did he knew, It's all in the Name, Especially the Surname!

Speaking of Surname, Sir DO YOU REALLY RESPECT GANDHI, OR IS IT JUST TO

CASH IN ON THE GOODWILL OF MAHATMA?

Because the Name on your Passport is RAUL VINCI. Not RAHUL GANDHI..

May be if you wrote your Surname as Gandhi, you would have experienced,

what Gandhi feels like, LITERALLY ( Pun Intended)

You People don't seem to use Gandhi much, except when you are fighting

Elections. ( There it makes complete sense).

Imagine fighting elections by the Name Raul Vinci...

You use the name GANDHI at will and then say, " Mujhe yeh YUVRAJ shabd

Insulting lagta hai! Kyonki aaj Hindustan mein Democracy hai, aur is

shabd

ka koi matlab nahin hai! YUVRAJ, Itna hi Insulting lagta hai, to lad lo

RAUL VINCI ke Naam se!!! Jin Kisano ke saath photo khinchate ho woh bhi

isliye entertain karte hain ki GANDHI ho.. RAUL VINCI bol ke Jao... Ghar

mein nahin ghusaenge!!!

You could feel ashamed for your Double Standards.

YOUTH INTO POLITICS.

Now You want Youth to Join Politics.

I say First you Join Politics. Because you haven't Joined Politics. You

have Joined a Family Business.

First you Join Politics. Win an Election fighting as RAUL VINCI and Not

Rahul Gandhi, then come and ask the youth and the Educated Brass for

involvement in Politics.

Also till then, Please don't give me examples of Sachin Pilot and Milind

Deora and Naveen Jindal as youth who have joined Politics. They are not

Politicians. They Just happen to be Politicians.

Much Like Abhishek Bachchan and other Star Sons are not Actors. They

just happen to be Actors (For Obvious Reasons)

So, We would appreciate if you stop requesting the Youth to Join

Politics till you establish your credentials...

WHY WE CAN'T JOIN POLITICS!

Rahul Baba, Please understand, Your Father had a lot of money in your

Family account ( in Swiss Bank) when he died.

Ordinary Youth has to WORK FOR A LIVING. YOUR FAMILY just needs to

NETWORK FOR A LIVING

If our Father had left thousands of Crores with us, We might consider

doing the same. But we have to Work. Not just for ourselves.

But also for you. So that we can pay 30% of our Income to the Govt.

which can then be channelized to the Swiss Banks and your Personal

Accounts under

some Pseudo Names.

So Rahul, Please don't mind If the Youth doesn't Join Politics.

We are doing our best to fund your Election Campaigns and your Chopper

Trips to the Villages.

Somebody has to Earn the Money that Politicians Feed On.

NO WONDER YOU ARE NOT GANDHIs. YOU ARE SO CALLED GANDHIs!!

Air India, KG Gas Division, 2G, CWG, SWISS BANK Account Details... Hasan

Ali, KGB., FBI Arrest..

You want to feel ashamed..?

Feel Ashamed for what the First Family of Politics has been reduced

to... A Money Laundering Enterprise.

NO WONDER YOU ARE NOT GANDHI'S BY BLOOD. GANDHI is an adopted Name. For

Indira didn't marry Mahatma Gandhi's Son.

For even if you had one GENE OF GANDHI JI in your DNA. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE

BEEN PLAGUED BY SUCH 'POVERTY OF AMBITION'

(Ambition of only EARNING MONEY)

You really want to feel Ashamed?

Feel Ashamed for what you ' SO CALLED GANDHI'S' have done to MAHATMA'S

Legacy..

I so wish GANDHI JI had Copyrighted his Name!

Meanwhile, I would request Sonia Gandhi to change her name to $ONIA

GANDHI, and you could replace

the 'R' in RAHUL/RAUL by the New Rupee Symbol!!!

RAUL VINCI : I am ashamed to call myself an Indian.

Even we are ashamed to call you so!

P.S: Popular Media is either bought or blackmailed, controlled to

Manufacture Consent! My Guess is Social Media is still a Democratic

Platform.

(Now they are trying to put legislations to censor that too!!).

Meanwhile, Let's ask these questions, for we deserve some Answers.

YOURS SINCERELY

NITIN GUPTA ( RIVALDO)

B. Tech, IIT Bombay

unique card aadhar

2011-09-09T13:43:00.001+05:30

યુનિક આઇડેન્ટિફિકેશન એટલે કે UID પ્રોજેક્ટ UPA સરકારનો એક ખૂબ મહત્વકાંક્ષી પ્રોજેક્ટ છે. આ પ્રોજેક્ટ માટે આયોજન પંચ હેઠળ UID ઓથોરિટી ઓફ ઇન્ડિયા (UIDAI)ની રચના કરવામાં આવશે. આ ઓર્ગેનાઇઝેશન નક્કી કરશે કે તેનો ગેરલાભ કોઇ પણ પ્રકારાના બિનસામાજિક તત્વો ના ઉઠાવે.

UID પ્રોગ્રામ હેઠળ દેશના તમામ નાગરિકોને એક યુનિક નંબર આપવામાં આવશે. તેના દ્વારા દેશની આંતરિક સુરક્ષા સાથે સંકળાયેલી ચિંતાઓના સમાધાન ઉપરાંત વસ્તુઓ અને સેવાઓની સાર્વજનિક ફાળવણી માટે એક વ્યવસ્થિત તંત્ર પણ વિકસાવવામાં આવશે. શરૂઆતમાં UID નંબર રાષ્ટ્રીય જનસંખ્યા રજિસ્ટર કે મતદાતા યાદીના આધારે ફાળવણી કરવામાં આવશે.

વ્યક્તિની ઓળખ બાબતે કોઇ ગેરરીતી થવાની શક્યતાઓનો અંત લાવવા બાબતે તેમાં તસવીર અને બાયો મેટ્રિક આંકડા જોડવામાં આવશે. આ સાથે લોકોના ફાયદા માટે તેની નોંધણી પ્રક્રિયા સરળ રાખવામાં આવશે. પ્રસ્તાવિત આઇડેન્ટિટિ કાર્ડ એવા સ્માર્ટ કાર્ડ હશે જેમાં વ્યક્તિ અંગે સંપૂર્ણ માહિતી મળી રહેશે. તેમાં વ્યક્તિની ફિંગરપ્રિન્ટ્સ અને ફોટો પણ હશે. આ કાર્ડ વયસ્કો ઉપરાંત 18 વર્ષથી ઓછી વયની વ્યક્તિઓને પણ આપવામાં આવશે. તેનો હેતુ વિવિધ સરકારી વિભાગોમાં ઓળખ માટે અલગ અલગ વ્યવસ્થાઓને ખતમ કરવાનો છે.

સ્માર્ટ કાર્ડ પાછળ સરકાર 6 અબજ ડોલર જેટલી માતબર રકમ ખર્ચ કરવાની છે.

cibil loans,credit report,defaulter ,will full default,settlement,banks

2011-09-08T13:51:00.000+05:30

CIBIL | Know your Cibil Score | Get your Cibil Score

Cibil – The Indian Credit bureau has now come up with a process for customers to know there Cibil Score and the status. Customers who have applied in last two years for loans have been faced with issues of there loans getting rejected for Cibil reference check done by banks. Customers never had the information on there current credit score or which banks have reported negative about them in Cibil.

But with the increased customer demand Cibil has come out with a process to let the customer know there cibil report.
But all this is with a price.
1.Please fill the form and send it to following address
2. Mail self attested hardcopies of your lastest Identity Proof and Address Proof documents and Fees of D.D RS 142 to P.O.BOX 17, Millennium Business Park, Navi Mumbai- 400710
3. Once CIBIL receives the documents and Fees, your request will be processed and copy of your CIR will be dispatched to you.
Offline via Post
1. Write to CIBIL with the CIR Request Form duly filled in
2. Also mail self attested hardcopies of your Identity Proof1 and lastest Address Proof documents and Fees of Rs 142 D.D to P.O.BOX 17, Millennium Business Park, Navi Mumbai- 400710
3. Once CIBIL receives the documents and Fees3, your request will be processed and copy of your CIR will be dispatched to you.
Phone Call/Fax
Call at 02261404300
Fax: 022-40789007
Fax CIBIL the CIR Request Form duly filled in
2. Mail self attested hardcopies of your Identity Proof1 and latest Address Proof2 documents and Fees3 to P.O.Box 17, Millennium Business Park, Navi Mumbai 400710
3. Once CIBIL receives the documents and Fees3, your request will be processed and a copy of your CIR will be dispatched to you.
The payment is to be made in name Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited payable at Mumbai .
Hopefully by knowing your report you will know whats are your credit relationships which are decreasing your scores and can take care of it.As we see it, its quite a task to get these reports, but something is better than nothing

free sms UK ,US INDIA, NETHERLANDS,NEWZEALAND,, AUSTRALIA FROM INDIA

2011-09-08T13:32:00.001+05:30

List of Top Free SMS Sites in India

www.send-sms-now.com

www.freesmsfun.com

Free International SMS Sites

www.textmefree.com

www.sendsmsnow.com

www.160by2.com

www.send-sms-now.com

Top Free SMS Sites in UK

www.freebiesms.co.uk

www.textmefree.com

www.smstoday.co.uk

www.freesmsfrog.co.uk

www.tosms.co.uk

www.swagsms.com

www.textmefree.co.uk/

Top Free SMS Sites in US

www.smseverywhere.com

www.funsms.net/

www.send-sms-now.com

anna hazare gujarati ahmedabad

2011-09-04T18:20:00.002+05:30

લો આ સન્સદ સભ્યો ને બહુ ખોટુ લાગ્યુ, બે ચાર વાક્યો જાહેર મા બોલી ને સન્સદ ની ગરીમા બહુ ઑછી કરી નાખી આ સિવિલ સોસાયટી વાળાઓ એ,આ તો દેશ સમક્શ બહુ મોટી સમસ્યા આવી ગઇ ,સન્સદ મા તોફાનો થાય, માઇકો ઉછળે, મફત નો પગાર લઇ ને ફક્ત 11 મિનિટ મા 19 કાયદા કોઇ પણ જાત ની ચર્ચા વગર‌ પસાર થાય,પણ મહીલા અનામત જેવા સારા કાયદા ક્યારેય પાસ ના થાય, કુલ દિવશો ના ચોથા ભાગ ના સમય મા પણ આ સન્સદ ને ભાગ્યે જ‌ સારી રિતે ચલાવવા મા આવે બાકીનો સમય‌ વૉક આઉટ અને લડવા જગડવા મા જ જાય‌, સન્સદ મા અડધા ઉપર ના સભ્યો પર અપહરણ,બળાત્કાર,હ્પ્તા વસુલી ,ખુન કેશ થયા હોય તેવા ક્રિમીનલો આવી જાય તે બધુ તો સન્સદ ની ગરીમા વધારે છે.લાલુ જેવા જેમ ફાવે તેમ બોલે,ચાલુ સન્સદ મા ઉઘી જાય,તેનાથી સન્સદ ની શોભા વધે છે,એક બીજા પર ચમ્પલ નાખી ને કે લાફા મારવા ની હદે પહોચે કે એક બીજા ના જભ્ભા ફાડી નાખે ત્યારે સન્સદ ની શોભા વધે છે.સ્પીકર બોલી બોલી ને થાકી જાય તો પણ ઘોઘાટ કરનારા ઓ થી અને બીજા ને નહી બોલવા દેનારા ના ઓ થી આ સન્સદ‌ ની પ્રતિષ્ઠા મા ચાર ચાન્દ લાગી જાય છે.કોઇ નુ બોલેલુ શાન્તિ થી સામ્ભળ્વુ નહી અને પોતાનો જ કક્કો સાચો ગણી જેમ ફાવે તેમ જુડ જુડ કર્યા કરવુ,તેનાથી સન્સદ ની આબરુ વધે છે,પણ જો કોઇ સામાન્ય માણશ તેમને, પ્રજા તેમના વિષે સાચા અર્થ મા શુ માને છે તે જો બે ચાર વાક્યો મા કહે તે તો થોડુ ચલાવી લેવાય.એમ કઇ થોડી સન્સદ ની ગરીમા ઑછી થવા દેવાય અમે જે કરીએ તે પ્રજાએ થોડુ બોલવાનુ હોય,પ્રજા નુ સર્જન તો ફ્ક્ત વૉટ આપવા માટે જ‌ થયુ છે,તે આમ ખુલ્લે આમ્ જાહેર મા સન્સદ નુ ઘસાતુ બોલે તે થોડુ ચલાવી લેવાય...આવુ માને છે આપણા માનનિય સન્સદ સભ્ય શ્રી ઓ,આ પ્રકરણ ને જો એક જ વાકય મા કહેવુ હોયતો........સો ચુહા મારકે બિલ્લિ હજ કો ચલી.......

University of British Columbia

2011-09-03T11:24:00.002+05:30

One of the best Graduate school admission website is with University of British Columbia. Following is the admission requirements.

UBC Masters

UBC Master’s Program Requirements for Students with Academic Credentials from India

Years of Study Required

a four-year Bachelor’s Degree or a Master’s degree

Overall Grade Required

First Class/Division 1 (65%) or Very Good (8 on a 10-point scale)

Credentials or Degrees Required

Bachelor degree in Engineering, Forestry or Medicine
Bachelor’s degree

UBC PhD

UBC Doctoral Program Requirements for Students with Academic Credentials from India

Overall Grade Required

First Class/Division 1 (65%) or Very Good (8 on a 10-point scale)

Credentials or Degrees Required

M.Phil.
Master’s Degree
Master’s degree in Engineering, Forestry or Medicine

Notes on Eligibility

Eligiblity for the Doctoral degree program at UBC requires completion of a Bachelor’s degree + Master’s degree or M.Phil. Degree

Free ACCA coaching in India 079-40009917 study material available

2011-09-02T13:39:00.001+05:30

VIJAY LODHA'S STUDY PROGRMME FOR ACCA UK COURSE

free free free free free free free free free free free free free free free free free free free free

UNIQUE Quality Teaching and Improvement with Practice Assurance

Concept: TELL......SHOW......INVOLVE.....

JOIN FIRST TWO LECTURES AND DECIDE YOURSELF

STUDY WORK SHOP AS FOLLOWS IN TWO MAIN STEPS:

1. FULL TIME (30 LECTURERS TWO HOURS EACH 3 MONTH PROGRAMME)

2. DAY RELEASE (TEST ASSESMENT PROGRAMME 5 DAYS 1 MONTH PROGRAMME)

Fundamental and professional subjects (F1-F9 & P1-P7)

We are using all these languages fluently (ENG., HINDI, and GUJ.)

1. COMPLETE STUDY MATERIAL (THROUGH COURIER)

2. NOTES+LMR+Q&A+25 CASE STUDIES+REVISION NOTES

3. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING FROM OUTSIDE

4. 5 QUESTION PAPERS OF ACCA TO GIVE FINAL PREAPRATION

5. ALL UK STUDY TECHNIQUES

6. ASSURANCE TO CLEAR THE EXAMINATIONS

7. PREPARE THESIS AND DESSERTATION TO GET OXFORD BROOKS DEGREE

8. PREPARING FILE FOR UK (working to the uk)

9. CORPORATE ORIENTATION PROGREMME

10. CONFIRM INTERNSHIP (AFTER FINISHING ACCA)

WHY ONLY VIJAY LODHA IN INDIA? TRY OUT FIND OUT......
to know why it is free need to visit office or call...........................................

079-400917,079-656498941

out of station students can buy study material at reasonable cost.

tofel study plan score us visa

2011-08-28T18:50:00.002+05:30

TOEFL iBT Study Plan

Don’t underestimate the importance of note-taking.
Don’t be lazy, train yourself to take notes well.
Write fast and practice using a shorthand (or not) that you are comfortable with.

For example to write the word ‘university’ you may either write ‘u.’ or ‘uni.’ or ‘univ.’, whatever comes most naturally to you, and you shouldn’t have any trouble understanding it when you refer to your notes while you are answering the questions.

TOEFL Study Plan – Reading Section

Take notes in all the sections, even Reading. The final question in Reading does not allow you to refer to the passage (the summary type question).

How to Score 116 in TOEFL iBT

Personally I feel it is best to read the whole passage and then note down what you feel is important before you start answering. This method worked for me, but you should see what works for you, it will depend on how fast you can read.

TOEFL Study Plan – Listening Section

In the Listening section, take notes during the conversations as well, not only the lectures. Don’t bother about being economical with the rough paper (you can always ask for more) and try to take notes in as neat and ordered a manner as possible. Use arrows, bullets, indentation, whatever you need.

Most importantly, train yourself to write and listen at the same time. It may so happen that you’re noting down something, and you end up missing what is being said in the conversation/lecture. You need practice to be able to avoid such a mishap.

TOEFL Study Plan – Writing Section

For Writing, I suggest that you look online for tips on how to write essays in TOEFL.

Structure is given more importance than vocabulary and grammar. You should have a set number of paragraphs that start and end in a particular way and your thoughts should be organized.

Again, I recommend noting down a skeleton before you start writing, particularly if you’re having difficulty with the topic, but it is not necessary.

Lastly, type, type type.

You have to improve your typing speed and make it as fast as possible. That will save you important time that you can use to plan your essay.

Some websites will tell you that ideally writing task answers should not go over 200-300 words.

Mine went well into 400-500 words. I’ve never been very good at condensing my thoughts (as you can see from the length of this post) and I thought I would get points cut for this, but I managed to score full.

TOEFL Study Tips – I Scored 114 in TOEFL iBT

So I guess what is more important is that you cover all points, length is secondary. Again, this is just an assumption based on my experience.

TOEFL Speaking Section Tips

Practice speaking. I was short of time, and the first time I did a speaking task was on the actual test. As a result I fumbled on the first 1-2 tasks and I was not at all surprised to see 29/30. The time you get to speak is actually very little, so you have to learn to speak in a calm, clear manner and cover all important points.

Final TOEFL Study Plan

Finally, try to get into a habit of reading English.
Read anything that interests you, doesn’t have to be fancy lan/guage or boring subject matter.
Also converse in English as much as possible.
Take a lot of mock tests to familiarize yourself with question types, it helps you to anticipate questions and then note important points accordingly.

Hope this helps, all the best

Thanks to Anisha for sharing her awesome experience.

She listed practical TOEFL tips on exam day, but when you prepare for TOEFL, you follow her TOEFL Study plan. There are several approaches, but try out few things and stick to something that works for you.

visa fraud in UK Ravi Gupta and Surge Global Solutions.

2011-08-27T20:13:00.001+05:30

A legal advisor from Hayes was jailed on Thursday 18 August for 4.5 years for masterminding a major immigration scam.

Indian national Ravi Gupta, 41, was arrested by our officers from the West London immigration crime team during a dawn raid on his home in Carlyon Road, Hayes in November 2010.

Gupta, an accredited immigration law advisor, supplied dozens of his clients with fake documents, letters, education certificates and payslips to aid immigration applications, helping them to falsify details of their income. He would typically charge up to £5,000 for each application.

His scam was uncovered following an undercover investigation into the practices used by his company, Surge Global Solutions.

Gupta admitted 14 charges of assisting illegal immigration and an additional charge of obtaining leave to remain in the UK by deception. A judge at Isleworth Crown Court sentenced him to 4.5 years in prison and recommended that he be deported at the end of his sentence.

Chris Foster, immigration crime team, UK Border Agency said:

'Gupta ran a sophisticated and lucrative scam, designed to help people who would otherwise have no right to be here stay in the UK.
'I am delighted that we have been able to bring him to justice, along with a number of people who knowingly benefited from his deception.
'His guilty pleas are an indication of the level of professionalism of my team in combating this type of crime and we are determined to continue tackling organised abuse of our immigration laws.'

Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings, designed to confiscate any money Gupta may have made from the scan have now begun.

Sentenced alongside Gupta were Tapinder Singh, 28, and Gurvinderpal Singh, 26, both of Benen-Stock Road in Stanwell Moor, Middlesex. Both admitted obtaining leave to remain by deception and money laundering offences and were each sentenced to 6 months in prison.

A further 4 men and a woman who were also involved in the scam had previously been sentenced to jail terms of between 4 and 8 months after admitting charges of obtaining leave to remain in the UK by deception.

Legal proceedings involving another 6 people suspected of being clients of Ravi Gupta are ongoing.

Damian Green, Minister for Immigration, said:

'This case shows we have stepped up action to tackle serious and organised abuse of our immigration system. The message is clear - the UK is no longer an easy touch.
'This summer we are targeting our efforts on breaking up the gangs behind visa scams; hitting rogue employers who repeatedly break the rules and doing more than ever to stop unwanted people coming to the UK.'

The West London immigration crime team is a specialist unit of police officers seconded from the Metropolitan Police working alongside our warranted officers to investigate organised immigration crime.

Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) is now open

2011-08-23T18:13:00.000+05:30

The Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) category of the UK's points-based system is now open for applications.

The new category is for people who are internationally recognised as world-leading or potential world-leading talent in the fields of science and the arts.

Applications under Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) must be made from abroad. You cannotapply if you are already in the UK.

Immigration help visarejection.com

2011-08-22T19:55:00.002+05:30

Asylum & Immigration Cases ( A -Z)

Coming soon

Abandonment
Abandonment - s58(9)
Abandonment of appeal
ABCD not to be followed
Abdi
Abduction
Ability to speak Kibajuni
Absence of appellant
Absence of party
Abuse of process
Accession
Accession nationals not now removed
Accommodation
Accuracy of country material
Acholi
Activism
Activities abroad
Activity
Activity in war
Adan
Adequacy of maintenance
Adequate accomodation
Adequate treatment

Adjournment

We would be grateful if you would reconsider that decision having regard
to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Assenov v
Bulgaria 28 October 1998 (90/1997/874/1086). In particular, we note that
as the High Court stated in the case of Nasseri [2007] EWHC 1548(Admin):

"...the right to an adequate investigation of an asylum claim is an
aspect of substantive right under Article 3". This is set out in
Assenov's case as follows:

"The Court considers that, in these circumstances, where an individual
raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the
police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of
Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the States general
duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within
their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined ...[the] Convention"
requires by implication that there should be an effective official
investigation ... If this were not the case, the general legal
prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and
punishment, despite its fundamental importance would be ineffective in
practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the state
to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual
impunity."

AM (Cameroon) [2007] v the AIT EWCA
Civ 131
Adjudicator
Adjudicator determination
Adjudicator reasoning
Adjudicator response to interpreter problems
Adjudicator wrongly obtaining post-hearing evidence
Adjudicator's conduct
Adjudicator's questions
Adjudicators
Adjudicators differing on family members
Adjudicators: "anxious scrutiny" / public interest
admissable
Admission of Evidence
Adoption
Adoption to care
Adultery
Adults
AE reaffirmed
Afghanistan

MT (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA)

An Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had erred in finding that there was no evidence that a Muslim from Afghanistan, who had converted to the Mormon faith whilst in the United Kingdom, was at risk of being tried and sentenced to death as an apostate if he was returned to Afghanistan
Age
Age assessment
Age dispute
Age: immutable characteristic
Ahmadi
Ahmadis: Rabwah
AIDS and Articles 3 and 8
Airport
Akaeke
Al-Hagh
Albania
Albanian
Albanians
Algeria
Allegations againt adjudicator
allegations by respondent
Alleged forgery
Alleging misconduct and suppressing evidence
Ambit of s.85(5) of 2002 Act
Analysis
Ankara Agreement
Anti-Russian Acts
Anti-Semitic Acts
Appeal
Appeal abandoned
Appeal ambit following statutory review
Appeal announced allowed but Reported dismissed
Appeal hearings
Appeal rights

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s. 92(4)(a)

BA(Nigeria) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/119.html

AM (Somalia) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/114.html

Appealability
Appeals
Appeals procedure
Appeals Raising Article 3 & 8
Appeals without grounds
Appellant
Applicable immigration rules
applicable rules
Application of Edore
Application of Ekincin
Application of SK and DK
Apply from Kosovo
Approach
Approach to medical evidence
Approach to subsequent Tribunal decisions
Arguable thereafter
Arif
Armenian ethnicity

Article 8

Chikwamba (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 40 - The House of Lords held that it would only be comparatively rarely, certainly in family cases involving children, that article 8 appeals should be dismissed on the basis that it would be proportionate and more appropriate for the appellant to apply for leave to enter the United Kingdom from abroad.

E B Kosovo (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 41 - The House of Lords considered the relevance of delay in the context of Article 8. Firstly, an applicant may during the period of any delay develop closer personal and social ties and establish deeper roots in the community than he could have shown earlier. The longer the period of the delay, the likelier this is to be true. Secondly, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal should consider whether, and to what extent, a delay in resolving his asylum claim, and the manner of its handling, were relevant when considering the proportionality of an immigration decision. Thirdly, delay may be relevant in reducing the weight otherwise to be accorded to the requirements of firm and fair immigration control, if the delay is shown to be the result of a dysfunctional system which yields unpredictable, inconsistent and unfair outcomes.

Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39 - The House of Lords held that section 65 of Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 requires the appellate authorities, in determining whether the appellant's article 8 rights have been breached, to take into account the effect of his proposed removal upon all the members of his family unit.

TK (Immigration Rules-policy-Article 8) Jamaica [2007] UKAIT 00025

Mayeka & Mitunga [13178/03] dated 12-10-2006 at ECHR level says that much [at 85].-

Sun Myung Moon [2005] UKIAT 00112 also deals with it at [43]-[45] & [68]

DM (Proportionality – Article 8) Croatia * [2004] UKIAT 00024

EA (Article 8 – entry clearance- delay) Iraq [2004] UKIAT 00236

SS (ILR - Article 8 - Return) Sri Lanka [2004] UKIAT 00126

Family life ( for the purposes of Article 8)

Keegan v Ireland 1994 18 E.H.R.R 342

Saini v Secretary of State for the Home department 1999 S.L.T. 1249

Nwokoye v Secretary of state for the Home department 2002 S.L.t 128

Gangadeen v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1998 Imm. A.R.106

Nisar Ahmed 2000 S.C.L.R 761

Mohammed Akhtar v Secretary of State for the Home Departmetn 2001 S. L. T. 1239

Art 8, para 317
Article 1 D
Article 14
Article 1F(c)
Article 2
Article 3

HK v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2006] EWCA Civ 1037
Court of Appeal, 20 July 2006: REFUGEES; CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT

Tribunal erred in rejecting clear and substantial evidence that asylum seeker faced breach of Article 3 ECHR if returned to Sierra Leone.

Article 3/HIV/"N" followed
Article 3: HIV
Article 3:2: Scope of regulations
Article 3:Suicide
Article 8

ZT v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)24/11/2005

Sub-heading: Serious illness, Availability of treatment, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: The appellant’s return to Zimbabwe was not a 'flagrant' or 'fundamental' breach of her rights or a disproportionate interference with her rights under Article 8 of the Convention, as she was not facing imminent death.

Djassebi (Hamidreza) (2) Mosayebi (Seyedehmasoumeh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)28/10/2005

Sub-heading: Asylum, Deterimental effect, Exceptional circumstances, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Issues: Evidence established by the asylum seekers had not met the criteria of exceptional circumstances sufficient to defeat the legitimate operation of the immigration control. The Secretary was entitled to conclude that their claims regarding infringement of their human rights were clearly unfounded.

Article 8: Family Life

Krasniqi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006)10/04/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seeker, Family life, Error of law, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: On considering the appellant’s close relationship with her partner, it was clear that her case was truly exceptional to make an otherwise lawful removal disproportionate.

Tozlukaya (Mehmet) (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006) 11/04/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seeker, Risk of suicide, Unfounded claim, Prolonged stay, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: The appellant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention was bound to fail and returning him and his family to Germany would not be an affront to fundamental humanitarian principles. However, removal of the appellant’s children would arguably constitute an interference with their right to private life under article 8 of the Convention.

Article 8: inconsistency
Articles 2 and 3
Articles 3 and 8
Articles 3/8 in medical cases
Ashkaelia
Ashkaelian
Ashkaelians
Ashraf
Assessing interference with private life
Assessment
Assessment Of Age
Assessment of credibility
Assessment of evidence
Assessment of medical evidence
Assessment of risk
Asylum
Asylum determinations
asylum grounds only
Asylum interview
At date of decision
Au Pairs
Availability
Availability of Entry Clearance Facilities
Aydogdu
Azerbaijan male
Azeris and mixed marriages

Hussain v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006)06/04/2006

: Asylum, Persecution, Jurisdiction, Error in law, Internal relocation, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Issues: The Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear the Secretary's appeal that had been made on a point of law under s.101 of the 2002 Act.

Ba'ath party
Ba'athist father
Background material
Baha'is
Bahai faith
Bajuni
Balancing
Bangladesh
Bantu
basis of appeal
Basis of reconsideration
BDK Members
Bedoon
Begedi
Benadiri
Benadiri Clan
Bensaid
Berbers
Best Practice
Bhutanese citizenship
Bias
Bidoon
Bihari
Bimaal clan
Blind person
Blood feud
Blood feuds
Bosnian Muslim
Breach of 1 child policy
Bribery
Bribes
Bucharest
Bujumbura area
Bulletins
Burden of proof
Burden of proof: effect ss 14-15 only
Burundi
CA
Cabinda
Call Witnesses
Cameroon Bamileke reluctant chief
camps
Cancellation refugee status: UNHCR Note
Care Proceedings
Carers concession
Case citation: details required
Caste
Catholic
Ceasefire
Certificate
Certificate & Remittal
Certification
Cessation
Cessation and exclusion
Cessation of conflict
Chaldo-assyrians
Change of circumstances
Chechen
Chechen war
Chechens
Chechnya deserter
Chechnya war
Chen
Chidren:settlement
Child
Children
Children: settlement
Christian
Christian apostates
Christian convert
Christian converts
Christianity
Christians
CIO
CIPU list not comprehensive
Citation of unreported decisions
Citizens Directive
Citizens Directive Article 3(2)
Citizens Directive; AP and FP applied
Citizenship
Clan member
Clans
Clarificatory Questions from IJs
Class
Collusion
Colombo
Commencement date
Commencement of enforcement action
Common threshold of risk
Communism
Communist party
Concession
Concession made by representative
Concession on DNA testing
conditional offer not acceptance
Conditions in Mosul
Conducive to the public good
Conduct of hearing
Conduct of previous solicitor
connection with sponsor
Conscientious objection: Convention reason?
Consequences
Consideration of evidence
Consideration of prior determination
Consideration of relevant factors
Considering policies
Contact
Content of adjudicator determination
Convention reason
Conviction
Cooperation
correction
Corroboration
Corroborative Evidence
Costs of statutory review
Country and individual circumstances
Country conditions
Country expert
Country Guidance Cases
Country information
Country Material
Country of habitual residence
Country of Nationality
Coup
Credibility
Credibility and psychiatric reports
Credibility assessment flawed
Credibility issues
criminal gangs
Cross border movement
Cross examination

Cuba

OM (Cuba Returning Dissident) Cuba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

curtailment of leave
Danian
Darfur
Date of Decision
Date of grant

Date of service

FS (Eritrea) [2007] UKAIT 00084 vs The Secretary of State for the Home
Department

Delay

Dependancy
Dependancy Alone Insufficient
dependants
Dependants of Absent Community Nationals
Dependency
Dependent relative
Depleted Uranium
Deportation

CW (Deportation – Huang – proportionality) Jamaica [2005] UKIAT 00110

CM (Deportation – Article 8) Jamaica [2005] UKIAT 00103

SE (Deportation – Malta – 2002 – General Risk) Eritrea CG [2004] 00295

MW (Deportation – Jamaica -conducive to the public good) Jamaica [2004] UKIAT 0017

AC (Deportation, Article 8, Appellant) Turkey [2004] UKIAT 00122

JN (Deportation _ Conviction _ Public Transport _ Proportionality) Kenya [2004] UKIAT 00009

BT (Deportation) Ethiopia CG [2002] UKIAT 06378

KO(Article 8-Deportation-Kehinde) Nigeria CG [2002]UKIAT 06038

EO (Deportation appeals: scope and process) Turkey [2007] UKAIT 00062

MG and VC (EEA Regulations 2006; “conducive” deportation) Ireland [2006] UKAIT 00053

AA (Involuntary returns to Zimbabwe) Zimbabwe [2005] UKAIT 00144

ES (Deportation pending on 2^nd October 2000) Ukraine [2006] UKAIT 00056

EO (Deportation appeals: scope and process) Turkey [2007] UKAIT 00062

Khan (Disputed Nationality - Removal Directions) Afghanistan * [2002] UKIAT 04412

Zeqaj (Removal Directions to Wrong Country) Albanian * [2002] UKIAT

00232

Jazayeri (Removal Directions) Iran * [2001] UKIAT 00014

Descendant
Deserters
Desertion
Destitution
Detention
Detention records

Following the case of Luamba v SSHD it was disclosed by SSHD that since April 2006 caseowners within the HO had been instructed verbally and by email by senior civil servants that notwithstanding the criteria for detention in published policy, they were to operate a presumption in favour of detaining foreign national prisoners at the expiry of their sentence until removal/release on bail.

On another point, make sure you check whether your client has been afforded his regular monthly reviews in accordance with Home Office policy as, if not, this may found a JR claim in itself. This is an issue that we are going back on - depending on the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision in R (SK). Also, if your client is a deportee, check whether he has been subject to the previously undisclosed policy presumption in favour of detention in deportation cases. We are going back on this issue as well and it is a point being raised in various other cases at the moment.

Deterioration of mental state
Determination on merits
Determination without hearing
Dev Sol

declaration of incompatibility
Devaseelan Applied
Direction
Directions
Disability
disabled sponsor
Disabled woman
Discontinuance by Secretary of State
Discretion
Discretionary leave
Discrimination
Disobedience to orders
Disputed nationality
Disputed Somali nationality
Distinguished
Divorced women
Djebari decision
Documentary evidence
Documentation
Documents Unreliable and forged
Documents: must send both parties
Domestic violence
Domestic Violence: evidence and procedure
Domestic worker
Double Jeopardy

DP3/96
DP3/96 -
Draft evaders
Draft Evasion
Draft related risks updated
Draft-Related Risk Categories Updated

DRC

Dublin Convention

Ahmadzai (Asif) (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006)01/03/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum claim, Transfer from one Member State to another, Prejudice, Lapse of time, Unexplained delay, Dublin Convention

Issues: Under the Convention, the Secretary was not required to transfer the claimant to Austria. Moreover, a combination of the inordinate delay and the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 made the transfer unlawful.

Dual nationality
Due process
DUP
EC law
ECHR
ECO
ECO assessment of language ability
ECO investigation
ECO's Duties per D S Abdi
ECO: post-decision evidence
ECRE guidelines
Edore and Razgar
EDP / UEDP members
Educated women
EEA
EEA - jobseeker
EEA discretion
EEA discretionary permit
EEA national: leave to remain?
EEA nationals
EEA Regs
EEA Regulation 10(1)
EEA Regulations
EEA Regulations 2000
EEA Regulations 2006
EEA Regulations: family permit
EEA Regulations: Five years' residence
EEA; “direct descendants” includes grandchildren
Effect
Effect Of Deletion
Effect of directions
Effect of following AE
Effect of IDI September 2004
Effect of Mibanga
Effect of previous linked determination
Effect Of Section 85(4)
effect on asylum-related appeals
Effect on proportionality
Ekinci Applied
Elderly
ELF-RC
Eligibility for amnesty
ELR
ELR mistake
Employment
Entry clearance

EA (Article 8 – entry clearance- delay) Iraq [2004] UKIAT 00236

Error of law

Rodriguez-Torres (Marco) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)10/11/2005

Sub-heading: Asylum, Persecution by the State, Deterioration in mental health, Exceptional cases, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: Although the Secretary had not used the phrase 'error of law', the substance of his complaint was clear and he had identified the errors of law that the Tribunal was asked to consider.

Eritrea
Eritrean
Escape
Escapes
Ethiopia
Ethiopian
ethnic groups
Ethnic Palestinian
Ethnic Russian
Ethnic Serb
Ethnicity
EU Accession
EU national
EU national - self-sufficiency
EU national ; self-sufficiency
EU Spouse
EURODAC
Evidence
Evidence expected
Evidence Not Probative Is Irrelevant
Evidence not received
Evidence not relied on before ECO
Evidence of risk
Evidence part heard
Evidence required
ex-CUKC with UK-born grandmother
Ex-military
Ex-minor
Ex-policeman
Examination of scars
Exceptional case?
exceptionality
excluding costs
Exclusion
Exclusion clause
Exclusion of evidence
Exempt From Draft
Exercise
Expert evidence
Expulsion cases
Extended family
extended family members

Look at McCarthy [2008] EWCA Civ 641. Essentially says must have exercised EU rights to qualify. As a consequence, may depend what you were doing for 5 years.

Extension of time for appealing
Extortion by Maoists
Extra statutory recommendations generally undesirable
Extra-Territorial Effect
Eyle
Fact finding
Fact-Specific
Facts
Failed asylum seeker
Failed asylum seekers
Failure to assess witnesses evidence
Failure to consider Evidence
Fair hearing
Fair trial
Fairness
False charges
False nationality appeal
Falun Gong

Family reunion

DL (DRC) & the Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria v The Entry Clearance Officer, Karachi [2008] EWCA Civ 1420 (18 December 2008)

Family ILR Exercise

AL (Serbia) and Rudi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42 - The difference in treatment effected by the Family Indefinite Leave to Remain concession between children entering the United Kingdom with their families and those entering without were justified, and the concession did not offend against the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.14.

Family life

Family member

KA (EEA: family permit; admission) Sudan [2008] UKAIT 00052 - Article 5 of the Citizens Directive (Council Directive 2004/38/EC) does not confer an unqualified right of pre-entry, entry or residence on family members of a Union citizen exercising Treaty rights. Family members are required to have an entry visa in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 or, where appropriate, with national law. The United Kingdom has chosen to impose a visa requirement in the form of an EEA family permit regime, and hence if a family member arrives at a United Kingdom border without an EEA family permit and seeks admission, he must satisfy the requirements of regulation 11 of the 2006 Regulations. Whether a person is entitled to a right of admission under regulation 11 depends on his being able to produce relevant documentation on that occasion (or within a reasonable period of time thereafter).
Family reunion
Family Visit

SB (family visit appeal: brother-in-law) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00053 - The relationship of brother (or sister-)-in-law between an appellant and sponsor falls within the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) Regulations 2003 where the sponsor is the sibling of the Appellant's spouse but not where the appellant's brother or sister is married to the sponsor in the UK.
FAQs
FARC
FARC Convention Reason
Fast Track
Fatah
Father's access to child
Fayli-kurds
Fazilet
Fear
Fear of GIA
Female at risk
Female BOCs
Female court
Female draft evader
Female eyle
Female genital mutilation
Female minor
FGM
FGM - Cameroon
Findings of Fact

Y v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1223. A tribunal of fact is entitled to make reasonable findings based on implausibilities, common sense and rationality. Evidence may therefore be rejected if it is not consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole.

Inherent improbability in the context of asylum cases was discussed at some length by Lord Brodie in Awala –v- Secretary of State [2005] CSOH 73. At paragraph 22, he pointed out that it was "not proper to reject an applicant's account merely on the basis that it is not credible or not plausible. To say that an applicant's account is not credible is to state a conclusion" (emphasis added). At paragraph 24, he said that rejection of a story on grounds of implausibility must be done "on reasonably drawn inferences and not simply on conjecture or speculation". He went on to emphasise, as did Pill LJ in Ghaisari, the entitlement of the fact-finder to rely "on his common sense and his ability, as a practical and informed person, to identify what is or is not plausible". However, he accepted that "there will be cases where actions which may appear implausible if judged by…Scottish standards, might be plausible when considered within the context of the applicant's social and cultural background".

Findings on sexuality
Fine paid
Fingerprint evidence
fingerprint match
First Decision Nullity
First Stage Reconsideration
FIS Amnesty
FMA

New guidance (FGM - Risk and Relocation) Kenya

VM (FGM-risks-Mungiki-Kikuyu/Gikuyu) Kenya CG [2008] UKAIT 00049

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2008/00049.html

Forced marriage
Foreseeable maintenance by pregnant sponsor
Former KAZ
Former solicitors' alleged misconduct
Formerly exempt persons: leave
Fraud
Freedom of religion

Freedom of Speech/Assembly

Barendt, Free Speech and Abortion [2003] PL 580

Cram, A Virtue Less Cloistered: Courts, Speech and Constitutions (Hart 2002)

Cram, Hate Speech, the First Amendment and cross burning in the USA (2003) Communications Law 389

Geddis, ‘If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out’: R v BBC, ex p Prolife Alliance (2003) 66 MLR 885

Geddis, Free Speech Martyrs or Unreasonable Threats to Social Peace? - ‘‘Insulting’’ Expression and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 [2004] PL 853

Hare, Inflammatory Speech: cross-burning and the first amendment [2003] PL 408

Hare, Methods and Objectivity in Frees Speech Adjudication: Lessons from America [2005] ICLQ 49

Lewis, Political Advertising and the Communications Act 2003: Tailored Suit or Old Blanket? [2005] EHRLR 290

Mead, Strasbourg succumbs to the temptation ‘‘To make a God of the Right of Property’’ [2003] J Civ. Libs 98

Macdonald and Jones, The Law of Freedom of Information (OUP 2003)

Munro, The value of Commercial Speech [2003] CLJ 134

Rozenburg, Privacy and the Press (OUP 2004)

Sanderson, Is Von Hannover a step backward for the substantive analysis of speech and privacy interests? [2004] EHRLR 631

Sedley, The Rocks or the Open Sea: Where id the Human Rights Act heading? (2005) Law and Society 3

Scott, A Monstrous and Unjustifiable Infringement? Political Expression and the Ban on Advocacy Advertising (2003) 66 MLR 224

Sottiaux, Anti-Democratic Associations: Content and Consequences in Article 11 Adjudication [2004] (4) Netherlands Human Rights Quarterly

Thorgeirsdottir, Journalism Worthy of the Name: An Affirmative Reading of the ECHR [2004] Netherlands Human Rights Quarterly

Tugendhat and Christie (eds), The Law of Privacy and the Media (OUP 2002) (150 page Supplement 2003)

Fresh credibility evidence
Fresh Evidence

MA (Fresh evidence) Sri Lanka * [2004] UKIAT 00161

R (Baydak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The secretary of state had been fully entitled to refuse to treat representations made by an asylum seeker as a fresh claim where there was no evidence that the asylum seeker was at risk of persecution in his home area so that the question of risk at the return airport did not arise

Fresh evidence at hearing
Funding
Funding Orders
Galgale
Gang wafare
Garde a vu
Gashgai nomads
GBTS
GBTS info
GBTS Records
Gedo
Geledi
Gender guidelines
General
General Principles
General risk
General situation
Genocide survivors
Genuine transfer of parental responsibility
Germany
GIA
Goa
Good reasons to consider
Gorani
Gorani in Kosovo
Gozinesh
Grounds of appeal: late amendment
Guidance
Guidance on application of Devaseelan
Guidelines
Gulu detainee
Gurkas
HADEP
Hamilton
Hamtaseh
Hassan
HC 395 para 284: "six months"
HC395 para 317: joint sponsorship
HC395 para 320
Health
Healthcare
Hearing
Hearing Interpreters
Helical treatment
Hezbe Islami
Highly skilled migrant - student switching
Highly skilled migrants: legitimate expectation
Hindu
HIV
HIV Positive
HIV/AIDS
Hizb-i-Islami
Holidaymakers
Home Office concessions
Home Office conviction - Consideration of
Home office policy
Home Office policy - consideration of
Homosexual

6. In order to understand this submission, and indeed the decision in J, it is necessary to say something about the situation of homosexual men in Iran. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran. Men who wish to have an active homosexual sex life must do so in private and avoid their sex life coming to the attention of the authorities. If it does, they risk suffering punishment that may amount to cruel or inhuman treatment or worse. The position was summarised by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in its country guidance decision RM and BB (Homosexuals) Iran CG [2005] UKIAT 00117 as follows:

123. We consider that we can properly conclude from the evidence that it is most unlikely, given the statistics and the problems of proof, that the death penalty for sodomy is anything other than an extremely rare occurrence. It is clear however that, and here we are in agreement with paragraph 24 of Ms Rogers summary of the evidence, those guilty of immoral acts under Article 147/115 and Tafkhiz under Article 121 face harsh punishments which can include long prison sentences up to six years and up to one hundred lashes. We remind ourselves of what Mr Kovats accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State that a sentence of lashing would be such as to give rise to a breach of Article 3 rights. Although we agree with Mr Kovats that the interest of the Iranian authorities in homosexual offenders is essentially focused upon any outrage to public decency, it is in our view clear that the authorities would not simply ignore, as Mr Kovats suggested they might in certain situations, reports made to them of persons carrying out homosexual acts albeit in private. If a complaint is brought to the authorities then we are satisfied that they would act upon that to the extent that they would arrest the claimed offenders and question them and thereafter there is a real risk that either on the basis of confessions or knowledge of the judge which might arise from such matters as previous history or medical evidence or the evidence of the person who claimed to have observed the homosexual acts, that they would be subjected to significant prison sentences and/or lashing.

124. Given that we consider therefore that there is a real risk that a person who comes to the authorities' attention for having committed an act falling within the relevant provisions of the code, it must follow that since this can be presumed to be known by those engaging in such acts, such actions would be likely to be carried out carefully. We have not been addressed on the issue of discretion and whether people engaging in such acts can be expected to act discreetly, which was considered by the Australian High Court recently, in Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration[2003] HCA 71. That is another argument for another day and we would not wish this determination to be interpreted as imposing a requirement of discretion, but rather a recognition that in the legal context in which homosexuals operate in Iran it can be expected that they would be likely to conduct themselves discreetly for fear of the obvious repercussions that would follow. We also consider, bearing in mind the consequences for persons prosecuted successfully for such actions, that Adjudicators should view with healthy scepticism claims that family members or friends or neighbours reported such actions to the authorities. Given the severity of the consequences we consider that proper caution should be exercised in assessing claims that people came to the attention of the authorities in such ways. This must be particularly so in the case of family members and friends. In our view, it is the case that homosexual acts carried on in private between consenting adults are most unlikely to come to the attention of the authorities and it is the case, and we think it is common ground, that the authorities do not seek out homosexuals but rather may respond to complaints of consensual homosexual activity being carried on. That then is the context in which these appeals must be decided.

Honour killings
HR
HR breach
Huang
Human rights

Human Rights Act

Bonner, Fenwick and Harris-Short, Judicial Approaches to the Human Rights Act [2003] ICLQ 350

Clayton, Judicial Deference and ‘‘democratic dialogue’’ [2004] PL 33

Craig, The Human Rights Act, Article 6 and Procedural Rights [2003] PL 753

Davis, Human Rights and Civil Liberties (Willan Publishing 2003)

Hoffman and Rowe, Human Rights in the UK (Longman 2003)

Edwards, Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act (2002) 65 MLR 859

Ewing, The Futility of the Human Rights Act [2004] PL 829

Feldman, The Impact of Human Rights on the UK Legislative Process [2004] Stat LR 91

Fenwick, Clashing Rights, the Welfare of the Child and the Human Rights Act (2004) 67 MLR 900

Jowell and Cooper (eds.), Delivering Rights: How the Human Rights Act is Working (Hart 2003)

Lester, The Human Rights Act 1998 – Five Years On [2004] EHRLR 258

Lord Irvine, The Impact of the Human Rights Act: Parliament, the Courts and the Executive [2003] PL 308

Kavanagh, The Elusive Divide between Interpretation and Legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 (2004) OJLS 259

Kavanagh, Unlocking the Human Rights Act: ‘‘The Radical’’ Approach to Section 3(1) [2005] EHRLR 260

Klug, Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act 1998 [2003] EHRLR 125

Leyland, The Human Rights Act and Local Government: Keeping the Courts at Bay [2003] NILQ 136

Masterman, Section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998: binding domestic courts to Strasbourg?

[2004] PL 725

McDermott, The Elusive Nature of the Public Function (2003) 66 MLR 113

Nicol, Statutory interpretation and human rights after Anderson [2004] PL 274

O’Cinneide, Democracy, Rights and the Constitution – New Directions in the Human Rights Act Era [2004) CLP 175

Pedain, The Human Rights Dimension of the Diane Pretty case [2003] CLJ 181

Plowden and Kerrigan, Advocacy and Human Rights (Cavendish 2002)

Starmer, Two Years of the Human Rights Act [2003] EHRLR 14

Steyn, Dynamic Interpretation amidst an orgy of Statutes [2004] EHRLR 245

Steyn, Deference: A Tangled Story [2005] PL 348

Stone, Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights (OUP 2004), 5^th edition

Sunkin, Pushing Forward the Frontiers of Human Rights Protection: The Meaning of Public Authority under the Human Rights Act [2004] PL 643

Wadham and Taylor, Bringing More Rights Home [2002] EHRLR 714

Wadham and Mountfield, Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 (OUP 2003), 3^rd edition

Human rights appeal
Human Rights Inarguable
Human rights unarguable
Human Rights?
Hutus
IAF
Identifying Issues
IDI
IFA
Ignorance of clan structure
Ill health
Ill-treament by authorities
illegal
Illegal departure
illegal departures
illegal employment
Illegal entrant: leave to enter
Illegal exit
ILR
IMIK
Immigration
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Immigration rule 57 (ii) (b)
Immigration rules

Imprisonment in UK
in country implications
In-country Appeal
Inability to comply
Inability to make entry clearance application
Including Coptic Christians
Income support
Indefinite leave sought
independant life
India
Individual
Informers
Insurmountable Obstacle?
Intention to co-habit: "intervening devotion"
Intention to leave
intention to work
Interests of justice
Interests of the state
Internal displacement
Internal Flight
Internal flight alternate
Internal flight alternative
Internal flight to south

Sedley LJ in MOHAMAD DAOUD [2005] EWCA Civ 755 at para 12:

"Internal relocation is not, as Home Office presenting officers seem
often to think it is, a throw-away submission in case other arguments
fail. It is a serious and frequently problematical issue, requiring
proper notice, proper evidence and proper argument, and it is governed
by legal tests to which this court has more than once devoted
attention."

International reaction
Interpretation
Interventions
Interview through interpreter
Interviewer as advocate: unfair?
involuntary returns
Involuntary returns to Zimbabwe
Iran
Iraq

EA (Article 8 – entry clearance- delay) Iraq [2004] UKIAT 00236

Israel
Israel - Gaza
Israel check points
Issue of risk of suicide in UK and country of origin
IWCP
J Applied
Jaaji Clan
Jamaica
Januzi applied
Jehovah's witness
Jewish & Muslim marriage
Jewish activist
Jeyachandran
Journalist
Journalists
Jurisdiction
Jursdiction - Rule 62(7)
KAA
Kabul
Kashmiri
Kasolo
Kehinde
Kenya
Kenyan Asian
KF applied
KhaD
Khartoum
Khartoum an option
Kibajuni speaker
Kidnapping
Kikuyu
Kirundi/Buyenzi
KK confirmed
KK followed
KLA
KMDJ
Knowledge of Kirundi
Known political opponent
Korovilas report
Kosovo
Kreish ethnicity
KRG
Kurd
Kurd-PKK
Kurds
Kurundi
Kwok On Tong
Kyrgyz woman
Landmines
Language ability?
Lari ethnicity
Late Evidence
Late filing
Late reliance on fresh evidence
Late service of respondent's notice
lawful employment
Leave to Appeal
Leave to remain
Legitimate expectation

Bakhtear Rashid [2005] EWCA Civ 744
Lekstaka
Length of stay
Lesbians
Lissouba Region
Lone women

Long residenceOS (10 years’ lawful residence) Hong Kong [2006] UKAIT 00031
AIT Reported

Lord's Resistance Army
Losing health improvement
Lost record of proceedings
Low level
Low level ELF
Low level members
LRA
LTTE
LTTE area
Luandan
Macedonian ethnic group
Mafia
Mahmood
Maintenance

AM (Ethiopia) (2008) EWCA Civ 1082

Amjad Mahmood v ECO

Majority clan can protect
Malta
Manastry
Maoist
Maoists
Marriage
Marriage of convenience
Married Women
maximum 12 months work
Maximum Period
May 2004 ECRE - risk categories too widely drawn
MCDDI
McDowall
McDowell Report
MDC
MDC - low level member
MDC supporter
meaning and effect
meaning and extent
Meaning of 'Dependent'
Meaning of 'subsisting'
meaning of “family unit”
Meaning of ILR
Meaning of significant prospect
meaning of spouse
Medical and corroborative evidence
Medical conditons for children
Medical evidence
Medical facilities
Medical report
Medical treatment
Medical Treatment of "finite" duration
Members and Family
Members generally at risk
Membership of a particular social group
Membership of Cambio 90
Membership of political group
Mental Health
Mental illness
Michigan guidelines
Midgan
Military serviceAriaya (Abreham Gebrenous) (2) Sammy (Sirak) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2006) 08/02/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seekers, Compulsory military service, Risk of persecution, European Convention on Human Rights

Issues: The Tribunal had rightly concluded that the asylum seekers would not be perceived as draft evaders and were therefore at no real risk of being ill treated or persecuted on their return to Eritrea.

Minor
minorities
Minority
Minority church members at risk
Minority clans
Minority group
Minors
mistake
Mistake of fact
Mixed ashkaelians ethnicity
Mixed ethnicity
Mixed Ethnicity - Albanian/Kosovo
Mixed ethnicity relationship
Mixed marriage
Mixed marriages Roma-Albanian
Mogadishu
Monrovia
Moslem
Mosul
Movement for democratic change
Mozu
Mungiki
Mungiki - not a religion
Muslim
Muslim - Christian conflict
Muslim Women
Mut'a or sighe
National passport: re-availment of protection
National records
National service
Nationality
Natural justice
Naturalisation

New evidence

New legislation

From The TimesJune 2, 2008

Immigration rule change
Court of Appeal

Published June 2, 2008

MO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for Home Department

Where no transitional provisions existed, applications made under a previous regime of rules would be adjudged under the current replacement rules.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Richards) so held in a reserved judgment on April 10, 2008, when dismissing the appeal of MO from the dismissal by an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, on February 25, 2007, of his appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State of the Home Department of his application to remain in the United Kingdom as a postgraduate doctor.

The application was made on January 17, 2006, under Immigration Rules HC 299 which were replaced, on April 3, 2006, by HC 1016 severely restricting the scope of overseas doctors staying as postgraduates.

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON said that here there were no transitional provisions, in the sense that HC 1016 came into effect in total replacement of HC 299 on the date on which it was made; in this case the rule-maker was the Home Secretary.

While some cases were shown in which the effects of changes in immigration rules had been expressly delayed, and the former regime retained in force during that period, it was impossible to demonstrate that it should be implied in cases where it was not expressly stated.

The immigration rules, odd though they were as a rule-book, clearly had some legal force. The secretary of state was formally constrained by them at any given time. Immigration judges had to apply them when hearing appeals.

NGO worker
Nhundu and Chiwera
Nigeria
No appeal
No basis for decision
No Discretion
No Fresh Evidence
No funding order
No general restriction on departure
No hearing
No hearing; compliance with Rules
No in-country right of appeal
No infringement
No legitimate expectation
No persecution
No political profile
No Power to review leave
No presenting officer
No protected family life
No real risk
No retrospective cancellation of leave
No retrospective effect
No Risk
No risk in removal country
No risk of double punishment
No risk of re-trafficking
No risk on return to Afghanistan
No substantive consideration
Non appearance of claimant
Non overt - homosexual
Non-compliance with directions
Non-Jewish
Non-Kurdish speakers in KAA
Non-Luandan
Non-recognised adoptions: unlawful discrimination
Non-state actors
Non-state actors: Acero-Garces disapproved
Non-traditional evangelical group
North Mitrovica
Not a qualified worker
Not at general risk
Not At Risk
Not family visit
Not generally at risk
Not legal but no real risk
not oral evidence
Not risk per se
Not undue harshness
Not within Shala
Notice of decision
Notices required
NS Case
Nufus Card
nullity assessment
Objective evidence
Objective situation
Objectivity
Obligation to investigate
Occupation
Occupied Territories

OLF and MTA
OLF Members and Sympathisers
OM distinguished
One child policy
Only loser can appeal
Operational Guidance
Operational Guidance Note 2001
Opposition activities
Orthodox Jew
Osu - Igbo
Other Grounds
Other information systems
Out of country appeal
Out of time
Out of time appeals
Out of time permission application

YD (Turkey) v Secretary of State for Home Department (2006)08/02/2006

Sub-heading: Asylum seeker, Jurisdiction, Application for permission to appeal, Extension of time, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

Issues: (1) The court had jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal directions on an “out of time” application for permission to appeal. (2) The appellant could not be granted an extension of time and permission to appeal as an exceptional course was not justified.

Overstayers
Palestine
Palestinian
Palestinian Arabs
Palestinians
Palestinians: Article 1D
Palliative AIDS treatment
Para 159A(ii)
Para 289A/HC395
Para 317(iii) – no 3rd party support
para 317: in country applications
Para 317: mothers-in-law
Para 320 refusal; substantive rule?
Paragraph 206 HC 395
Paragraph 252
paragraph 276
Paragraph 297(i)(e): "sole responsibility"

TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): "sole responsibility") Yemen [2006] UKAIT 00049 ( 24 May 2006)

Emmanuel v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 69; Martin v SSHD [1972] Imm AR 71; Sloley v ECO, Kingston [1973] Imm AR 54; and Rudolph v ECO, Colombo[1984] Imm AR 84
Paragraph 298(iii)
Paragraph 340 of HC 395
Paragraph 60 (v): meaning of "including"
Paragraph 60(v): "passing" and "relevant"
Paramilitaries
Part 9 HC395
Particular social group
Partisan
Pashtun
Pashtuns
Passport renewal
Patriots
PDPA member
Peaceholding
Perceived bias
perceived collaborator
Perceived Taliban
Persecution
Persistent questioning by adjudicator
Personal
Personal Knowledge
Peru
PK
PKK
Plausibility
Pocket money from sponsor
Point of law
Point of return
Police
Police brutality
Police officer
Policies; executive discretions; Tribunal's powers
Policy
Policy concessions not Convention recognition
Political journalist
Political opinion
political oppositionists
Political writer
Post-decision evidence
Powers of adjudicators
Practice Directions
Practice on Reconsideration
Pragmatism
Pre-2000 Decision
Pre-commencement remittal
Pre-trial conditions
Preaching
Prejudice
Presevo Valley
Presevo Valley via Belgrade
Presidential note
Presumptions
Preventative measures
Previous claims
Prison
Prison condition
Prison conditions
Prison conditions-no risk
Prisoner

Prisoners' Rights

Borroks-Gordon and Bainham, Prisoners’ families and the Regulation of Contact [2004] J. Soc. Wel. & Fam. L 263

Creighton and King, Prisoners and the Law (Butterworths 2004), 3^rd edition

Foster, Case Analysis on Hirst v United Kingdom (No2) [2004] EHRLR 436

Foster, Prison Conditions, human rights and Article 3 ECHR [2005] PL 33

Lawson and Mukherjee, Slopping out in Scotland [2004] EHRLR 645

Lazarus, Contrasting Prisoners’ Rights: A Comparative Examination of England and Germany (OUP 2004)

Livingstone, Owen and Macdonald, Prison Law (OUP 2003) 3^rdedition

Owers, Prison Inspections and the Protection of Human Rights [2004] EHRLR 107

Padfield, Beyond the Tariff: Human Rights and the Release of Life Sentence Prisoners (Willan Publishing 2002)

Padfield et al, Discretion in the Criminal Justice System (Willan Publishing 2003)

Samuels, In Denial of Murder: No Parole (2003) Howard J Crim Justice 176

Shute, Punishing Murderers: Release Procedures and the ‘Tariff’ 1953-2004 [2004] Cim L. R. 873

R (Shaheen) v Secretary of State for Justice (QBD)

Where a British citizen who was both resident in and had a family in the Netherlands had been sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment for a drug-related offence in the United Kingdom, the secretary of state was reasonably entitled in the circumstances to refuse to consent to the prisoner's transfer to the Netherlands to serve the remainder of his sentence there

Private life
Procedure
Procedure rules
Procedure rules 2000: rules 30 and 33(2)
Procedure Rules 48(5) and 48(6)
Professional handwritten grounds not acceptable
proof of forgery
Proof of indirect racial discrimination
proof required
Proper ambit
Proper approach
Proper finding
Proper notice
Propiska
Proportionality
Proportionality appeal: assessment, not discretion
Proportionality not relevant
Prosecution
Prostitution
Protection
Prove Destitution
Provenance of fresh evidence

PSG

MP (Trafficking- sufficiency of protection) Romania [2005] UKAIT 00086

JO (internal relocation- no risk of re-trafficking) Nigeria [2004] UKIAT 00251

SB (PSG – Protection Regulations – Reg 6) Moldova CG [2008] UKAIT 00002 AIT reliance on Art 6(1)(d) of the Protection Regulations

Psychiatric
Psychiatric illness
Psychiatric report
Psychiatric treatment
Psychiatric/Psycological evidence only on abnormalities
PTSD
Public funds: housing
Public good
Public interest
Public interest not a fixity
Public interest proviso
PUK/KDP
Punishment
Purpose
Qualification Directive
Question of fact
Questioning
Queue jumping
R1 procedure
R297 (v)
Rabwah
Race Discrimination
Racial discrimination
Rahanweyn not a minority clan
Rape
Rape victims
Razgar Considered
Razgara Djali
RCD-FIS
Reading Previous Determination
Really serious consequences
Reasonable Period
Rebel activity: no background evidence
Recent developments
Reception On Return
Recognition elsewhere as refugee
Reconciliation with goverment
Reconsideration
Record of Proceedings
Records
Refugee
Refugee claim
Refugee's Family
Refugees' Family Policy
Refusal to allow cross-examination
Reg 6
Reg 8(3) EEA Regs 2006
Registration on relocation
Registration system
Regular Attendance
Regularisation Period
regulation 8
Rejection of child on gender grounds
Related claimants: Kimbesa explained
Release
Relevance of children to removal
Relevant risk factors
Reliance on photocopies
Reliance on unidentified sources
Religion
Relocation
Relocation of ex-President bedie
Relocation to Khartoum
Relocation to Khartoum?
Rely on SEF
Remedies
Remittal
Removal
Removal Directions
Removal Directions to Wrong Country
Removal directions to wrong destination
Removal to Eriteria of Ethiopia/Eritrean
Removals policy
Reply to Directions
Reported cases as evidence
Reporting restrictions
Representation
Reprisals
Requirements for indefinite leave
Residence
Respondent's notices
Restriction of submissions
Restrictions
Restrictions on cross-examination
Return
Return of Southern Sudanese
Return permissible
Return to Eritrea
Return to Monrovia
Return to South unduly harsh?
Returnees
returning asylum seekers
Returning citizens
returning dissident
Returning resident
Returning resident: scope of exception
Returning Sikhs and Hindus
Returning Students
Returns
Review of case-law
Review of current situation
Reviewed
Revocation of Residence Document
Rift Valley
Right of appeal
right of permanent residence
Rights of appeal
Rights of others
risk
Risk - Connections with Mobutu
Risk and relocation
Risk as failed asylum seeker
Risk at date of hearing
Risk categories
Risk categories reviewed
Risk Factors for Burmese Citizens
Risk for involuntary returnees
Risk from any political activity
Risk if "committed"
Risk in Kabul
Risk of imprisonment on return
Risk of persecution
Risk of removal
Risk on Return
Risk to homosexuals
Risk to RUF members
Risk: Domestic Violence
risk?
Risks in
Risks in KDP area
Risks on return
Rohingya Muslim
Role of HOPO
Roma
Roma in Kosovo
Roma-Munteanu
Roman-Catholic
RR
RUF
Rule 23
rule 23(5): respondent's duty
Rule 297(e):sole responsibility
Rule 298
Rule 30.1: When Reply Required
Rule 45
Rule 48 (5)
Rule 51(4)
Rule 59
Rule 60
Rule 62(7)
Rules
Rules 30(2) and 45(4)(c)
Russia
Russia / Chechen
Russian prison conditions
Rwanda prominent MDR family
Rwandan
Rwandan heritage
s.103D Funding Precluded
s.65 Appeal
s.83
s104(4)(b) of 2002 Act = application not limited
s92(4)(a): meaning of "has made"
s94 Certificate: Jurisdiction
Sab clan
Safe route
Safe third country
Safe/unsafe arrivals: No distinction
Safety in Kabul
Same-sex relationships
satisfactory progress
Scarring

RT is very dismissive of scars which can "only" be described as consistent. To be corroborative of anything (it is implied) they must be "highly consistent." The Irish High Court has taken a much more straightforward approach in S. -v- MJELR & Anor [2007] IEHC 305.
Schedules
SCNC
scope and process
Scope of appeal
Scope of evidence
Scope of remittals
Scope of s103A Reconsideration
SDF member/activist
Second Appeals
section 108 procedure
Section 3c
Section 65 1999 Act
Section 66(2) 1999 Act
Section 69(1) appeal
Section 8: commencement
Section 8: judge's process
Section 82(2)(d): interpretation and effect
Section 83(2) appeals
Section 85 (4) explained
Section 86(3) and (5)
Sections 69(3) 1999 Act
Sectors Based Work
Security
Security Forces
Seddon report
Self-sufficiency
self-sufficient person - proof
Senior members of the Democratic Party and their families at risk
Sentence
Sentenced by former regime
Separation from children
Separatist
Serious crime
Service as village guard
Service of determination
Service of notice of decision
Settlement

Secretary of state’ Objection

A (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)01/12/2005

Sub-heading: Non-political crimes, Adjudicator's discretion, New objection at appeal stage, Error of law, Refugee Convention, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Issues: On whether the Secretary was entitled to raise a new objection relating to the applicability of the Convention at the appeal stage, a new objection could be raised for the first time at the appeal stage only when the facts clearly pointed to an obvious error of law.

Seven year child concession
Sexual violence

Shekhal Gandhershe
Sierra Leone
Significance

Single female/ Single woman

Social group
Solicitors without instructions to withdraw
]Special needs
Spouse
Spouse - ELR
Spouse's pending claim: removal bar?
Spouses
Spouses: Marriage
Sri Lanka

NA's expulsion to Sri Lanka would be in violation of Article 3

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT / NA. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its lead Chamber judgment in the case of NA. v. the United Kingdom(application no. 25904/07).

The Court held unanimously that the applicant's expulsion to Sri Lanka would be in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 4,451 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses, less EUR 850 already received in legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in English

SS.82 & 83
Standard of Proof

Shaheen (Shabana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005)02/11/2005

Sub-heading: Asylum, Standard of proof

Issues: The IAT had not erred in law in dismissing the Secretary's appeal, as the evidence submitted by the Secretary was unlikely to satisfy the requisite standard of proof or the requirements of E and R v SSHD [2004] EWCA Civ 49.

Standstill Clause
State Persecution
Stateless Nepalese: Refugee?
Statelessness
Statutory abandonment
Statutory review
Stigma
Strbac
Student
Student ability to follow course
Student Application
Student: IDI "warning" about progress
student; "satisfactory progress"

G Omerenma Obed & 7 Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 747 - The grant of clearance to enter the United Kingdom as a student did not confine the entrant to a particular course of study. The secretary of state no authority to impose conditions on a student entrant as to the course he was to follow. Further, failing an examination did not always negate the making of satisfactory progress in a course of study within the meaning of the Immigration Rules r.60(v).
Subesh
Subsequent decision : how far relevant?
Sudan

AY [Political parties - SCP - risk] Sudan CG [2008] UKAIT 00050 - In a country guidance case about the risk to political activists in Sudan, the AIT stated:
1. Opposition parties are allowed to function within relatively narrow parameters in Sudan; 2. The Sudanese authorities do not seek or even attempt to take action which could amount to persecution against all political opponents but in the main they seek to control by the use of fear and intimidation. Depending on the particular circumstances of an individual, they may resort to stronger measures, particularly against those actively engaged in building up grass roots democracy, working in support of human rights and involved in open criticism of the regime's core ideology and philosophy; 3. In general it will be difficult for ordinary members and supporters of the Sudanese Communist Party or any other political party to establish a claim for asylum. They will need to show that they have been engaged in specific activities likely to bring them to the attention of the adverse authorities such as active and effective local democratic activity or support for particular human rights activities. Whether any individual political activist is at risk will necessarily depend upon his individual circumstances set within the context of the situation as at the date of decision. This will include an assessment of the nature of the activities carried out and how they will be seen by the authorities; 4. The legal status of an opposition party has no significant bearing in itself on whether an individual is likely to be at risk of persecution. Political activities also take place under the guise of cultural associations
Sufficency of protecion
Sufficency of protection
Sufficency of protection in Kabul
Sufficiency of protection
Suicide
Suicide risks
Suicide/mental stability : legal requirements
Sunni extremists
Support
Support for family
Surendran
Surendran Guidelines
Surendran guidelines for adjudicators
Suspected militant
Svazas
Swahili speakers
Tamils
Teacher
Telephone relationship
Terrorism
Terrorist threat
Test
Test for bias
Threats from Salafists
Tibetan
Time Calculations
Time for Reply
Time Limits

Third Parties

AB (Third-party provision of accommodation) [2008] UKAIT 00018 (06/03/2008)

Timeous Appeal Treated As Late
Timing of decision
Timing of funding application
Torture and ill treatment
Totality of evidence
Town Tunnis regarded as Bravanese
Trafficking
Traitor

Truly Exceptional
Tuni
Tunni Torre
Turkey
Turkey GBTS info at borders
Tutsi
Tutsis added
UDPS
UDPS members
UFIN
UK national’s spouse
Ukraine
Umma
Unaccompanied minor
Unaccompanied Minors
Unauthorised departure
Under 12 Policy
Understandings to return to Kaz
Unduly harsh
Unexceptional
Unfairness
UNHCR
UNHCR advice
UNHCR letter
Unmarried
UNMIK
Unreported Decisions
Unreported determintaion
Unsigned interview notes
UP - FARC
Update
Update and corruption
Upgrade appeal
Upheld no valid appeal
Upheld SK
Use of N Judgment as a benchmark in ill-health cases
Use of Sharif name
Validation of UK Qualifications
Validity of Pakistani divorce
Variation of Course
Variation of grounds
Variation of leave
Vendetta
Viable Options
Victims of extortion
Victims of gang violence
Views of ECO
Virjon B applied
Visa applications
Visa facilities
Visaginas Church
Visit appeal
Visit visa: paper or oral?
Visitor
Void marriage
Voluntary return
Vulnerable female
Vulnerable group
Wani Applied
War crimes
War veterans
Warlord
Warlords
WC Considered
WCPI
Weak
Weight Attached
Well founded fear
which course?
WHM
Withdrawal

Glushkov, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department & Anor [2008] EWHC 2290 (Admin) (09 September 2008)

Witness
Witness corroboration in asylum appeals
Witness with refugee status
Woman
Women
Women as particular social group
Work permit holders' ILR
Work permit refusal not appealable

Workers
Workers' Family

Working holidaymaker

Wrong Immigration Rule

CP (Section 86(3) and (5); wrong immigration rule) Dominica [2006] UKAIT 00040

RM (Kwok On Tong: HC395 para 320) India [2006] UKAIT 00039

Yazidis

Young Chechen male
Young female

GK( Young Female _ Risk on Return) Rwanda CG [2004] UKIAT 00054

AA (Vulnerable Female – Article 3) Ethiopia CG [2004] UKIAT 00184

YS and HA Applied

Zimbabwe

RS (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA)

The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal had erred in confining its analysis of a human rights appeal by a Zimbabwean woman suffering from HIV to the health issues surrounding her return to Zimbabwe, when there was material on the general situation in Zimbabwe which required analysis. In the light of statements by the European Court of Human Rights in N v United Kingdom (26565/05) Times, June 6, 2007 accepting a broader approach to "humanitarian considerations", the IAT's approach could not be justified.

MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 289 (02 April 2009)
KJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 292 (02 April 2009)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AHK & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 287 (02 April 2009)
M, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice [2009] EWHC 768 (Admin) (07 April 2009)
Kullas, R (on the application of) v SSHD [2009] EWHC 735 (Admin) (07 April 2009)
HSMP Forum (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 711 (Admin) (06 April 2009)
Yuen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 573 (Admin) (25 March 2009)

Site Map