Foreign nationals suspected of being a terrorist threat may be detained without charge, without breaching Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
A A O v Entry Clearance Officer  EWCA Civ 840
Can "family ties" in Article 8 terms arise out of mere financial dependency?
A.A. v. United Kingdom - 8000/08  ECHR 1345
Rape conviction carries little weight against deportee's right to family life
Under the Dublin Convention the Secretary of State could deport asylum seekers to Germany as a safe third country. Deportation to Germany would not breach an asylum seeker's rights
Refusal of support under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s.55 would constitute a breach of Article 3.
The non EU spouse of an EU worker may not avail him or herself of freedom of movement rights to enter and reside in a member state of the EU if he or she has been residing there unlawfully, thus evading national immigration rules.
Al-Nashif v Bulgaria
The lack of judicial scrutiny for deportation proceedings breached Article 5(4) even where issues of national security were involved
The inclusion of India on the "white list" of designated safe third countries was not an unreasonable act of the Secretary of State
Amrollahi v Denmark
The reluctance of one family member to move back to a deportee's destination state is an Article 8 reason to bar deportation
AN v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 869
The Court of Appeal has held that control orders of three men suspected of terrorism revoked by the Government should in fact be quashed altogether. The decision opens the door for the men to claim compensation, and deals another blow to the controversial control order scheme.
Anam v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1140
The approach the courts should take when considering whether detention pending deportation is legal in a case involving an ex-convict with serious psychiatric illness.
AP (Trinidad & Tobago) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 551
Former convicted alien who had lived in the UK since the age of 4 could not be deported for drugs offence,following a string of other offences, because of his right to family life in this country.
AS & DD (Libya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Liberty (Intervener)
 EWCA Civ 289
In deportation and extradition cases, where a signatory State to the Convention has signed a memorandum of understanding with a non-contracting State to facilitate compliance with its Article 3 obligations, it still remained the duty of the signatory State’s appellate immigration tribunal to determine what risks the deportee would be exposed to upon return even with a memorandum being in place.
AS v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 564 (Admin)
Applicant fails in JR despite being neither able to enter UK lawfully nor able to acquire documents to fly to Kuwait
It was not sufficient, in order to avoid expulsion, to point to the risk of suffering harm from non-state agents in the receiving country. Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights required an asylum seeker to establish that the receiving country did not provide for those within its territory a reasonable level of protection against such harm.
Rules preventing sham marriages infringed right to marry and found a family under Article 12
An escaped Russian prisoner who had not been exposed personally to the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Russian prisons was entitled to the protection of Article 3 by reference to the conditions of detention in Russian prisons generally.
Bensaid v UK
There was insufficient evidence that the lack of psychiatric care in Algeria would expose a mentally ill deportee to treatment contrary Article 3
The order for the appellants' extradition to stand trial in the United States for fraud was neither unlawful nor an abuse of the process of court. The extradition would not breach Article 6 since the appellants would not be denied a fair trial in the US, and any interference with their family and private life under Article 8 was justified by the need for the UK to honour her treaty obligations.
Where a mother was unlawfully present in the United Kingdom the decision of a local authority to cease providing her and her two children with accommodation had not been unlawful, perverse or irrational, nor had it been in breach of Article 8.
Refugee Convention claims and Human Rights Convention claims are essentially the same for the purposes of certification under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and asylum claimants should not be permitted to raise fresh claims under one Convention having unsuccessfully argued a case under another.
Caglar v Germany
Deportation of an alien Germany to Turkey would not expose him to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 and the interference with his family life was justifieid by the gravity of his offence
Chandra v UK
Aliens cannot arrive in a receiving country, establish family ties, then confront the authorities with a de facto situation meriting the award of residence permits on the basis of Article 8.
The “internal flight”option to the applicant meant that the claimed threat to his life in Macedonia was not present and the isolation he suffered as a result of his religion did not amount to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
 UKHL 64
An alien could not be removed from the UK where custody laws in the destination state might threaten her right to family life under Article 8.
The Home Secretary's refusal to lift the exclusion order on Louis Farrakhan struck a proportionate balance between the aim of prevention of disorder and freedom of expression under Article 10
Garry Norman MANN v Portugual and the United Kingdom – 360/10  ECHR 337
A football fan who was convicted to two years in a Portuguese jail for rioting has lost his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against his conviction and extradition.
Article 3 of the Convention did not oblige the Home Secretary to make special enquiries into the conditions of accommodation offered under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 section 95 so as to ensure that a particular asylum seeker would not suffer ill-treatment contrary to Article 3.
Goldstein v Sweden
An asylum seeker must establish that the risk of ill treatment stems from public authority before he can claim that Article 3 should prevent return to the country of embarkation
Illegal entrants do not enjoy a right to welfare support under legislation or any of the provisions of the Convention and the right to family life is not infringed by the exercise of a local authority's powers to facilitate travel arrangements for claimants to return to their state of origin.
The right to be recognised as a British citizen was not a civil right within Article 6 of the Convention, nor was there any "determination" for the purpose of this Article
The decision by the Home Secretary to accommodate destitute asylum seekers in a particular hostel did not breach their rights under Articles 6 or 8
Hilal v UK
An asylum seeker was entitled to claim the protection of Article 3 against return to Tanzania as he faced the real risk of prosecution for his activities in the Zanzibar nationalist opposition party
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 31 (07 July 2010)
The government’s “Anne Frank” policy of sending back gay refugees to their home countries where they feared persecution is unlawful as it breached their human rights.
Where an applicant for asylum produces consistent evidence of persecution before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, and the expert evidence does not contradict it, the burden of proof is effectively discharged.
HM (Iraq) v The secretary of state for the home department  EWCA Civ 1322
Immigration Tribunal paid insufficient attention to applicant's right to private life
The right to education was not absolute and could not be relied upon to buttress an immigration claim. A child's right to education whilst in the UK did not entail the right to remain
The role of an appellate immigration authority when deciding appeals against refusal of leave to enter or remain on human rights grounds under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is to decide whether the challenged decision is incompatible with a Convention right and therefore unlawful. It does not have a secondary reviewing function based on a finding against the primary decision maker of irrationality, procedural impropriety or misdirection. There is no additional requirement that to succeed on Convention grounds a case must be an exceptional one.
An asylum seeker could not be deprived of support for reasons outside the Regulations; however since adjudicators enjoyed security of tenure, there was no breach of Article 6
A scheme which penalised lorry drivers for advertently or inadvertently carrying clandestine entrants into the UK breached Article 6
IR (Sri Lanka) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 704
Deportation, secrecy and knowing the case against you
IR (Sri Lanka) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 704
Deportation, secrecy and knowing the case against you
The guidance on deportation set out in Home Office Circular DP3/96 did not breach the deportee's right to family life under Article 8
Whilst delay was a relevant factor in considering proportionality under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, it was not sufficiently relevant in the appellants' case to be determinative of their claim to remain in the UK.
The secretary of state's decision to include Pakistan in the white list of designated "safe" countries was irrational
Kambadzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 23
Failure to review the detention of an immigration detainee, in accordance with immigration policy, meant that his detention was unlawful
Individual at risk from family blood feud entitled to asylum even without proof of systematic persecution
Detention of asylum seekers at a holding centre for the purposes of operating the fast track procedures for asylum was proportionate and necessary and did not infringe the claimant's rights under Article 8
For an asylum seeker to claim the protection of the "right to family life" under Article 8, there must be a situation of genuine dependency. However, there was no absolute rule that to establish a right under Article 8 there needed to be a family life within the UK.
If a claimant had a valid human rights claim not to be removed, he had an entitlement to stay, notwithstanding that he was an illegal entrant
The Home Secretary was not entitled to maintain his certificate that a claim under Article 3 of the Convention was clearly unfounded because there was a significantl risk that the claimant's wife would commit suicide if she was removed from the United Kingdom thus bringing the removal order into the range of treatment prohibited by Article 3.
Voluntary membership of a cult was not membership of a social group that qualified an asylum claimant as a refugee under the 1951 Convention.
Lahnifi v Netherlands
The refusal by a state to grant the applicant's daughter a residence permit to allow her to stay with her father in the Netherlands did not breach their right to a family life under Article 8
Appeal dismissed from the decision of the Administrative Court that the Home Secretary should have provided three asylum seekers with asylum support under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in order to avoid a breach of their rights under Article 3.
MA (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
 EWCA Civ 304
A stateless person can be denied re-entry into the country of his former habitual residence, and such a denial, does not amount to persecution.
Maaiouia v France
Proceedings concerning the rescission of an exclusion order did not engage Article 6 since matters of immigration including exclusion and expulsion fell outside that Article
A litigant cannot claim to have an Article 1 Protocol 1 right to be reimbursed his costs while proceedings are still pending. The claim has to be to a secure entitlement, not a speculative one
The denial of a right of residence to an EU citizen's non-EU same sex partner was not an infringement of the right to family life under Article 8
Delay in granting asylum did not give rise to a right to damages under Article 8
The mere fact that citizenship was withheld from the applicant's child could not be a failure to respect family life. Common citizenship was not a necessary component of family life
Removal of a failed asylum seeker to Germany as a safe third country did not threaten her Convention rights
The "truly exceptional" test set out in Razgar for Article 8 defences to removal was a matter of fact, not law
Delay in the administration of an asylum application did not infringe the claimant's Article 8 rights.
Article 3 did not oblige signatory states to relax their immigration controls in order to provide health services to aliens where medical care is inadequate in the state of origin
Norris v United States
 UKSC 9
In determining whether interference with an individual’s right to a family life was justified to achieve the aim of extradition, the court should not consider whether the circumstances were exceptional but should consider whether the consequences were exceptionally serious
Welfare of the child is not a paramount consideration in determining whether the parent should be deported for having entered and remained in the country illegally
Othman (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
 EWCA Civ 290
A signatory state to the Convention cannot deport an individual back to his non-signatory state when there is a high probability that the non-signatory state will use evidence obtained by torture in his retrial. Such evidence is prohibited by Convention law not just because it will make a trial unfair, contrary to Article 6, but also because it is in direct breach of Article 3 a fundamental, unconditional and non-derogable right.
The applicant's return to Germany would not give rise to a serious possibility of deportation to Turkey by the German government in contravention of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
Prashant Modi v United Kingdom Border Agency  EWHC 1996
The High Court rules on the limited human right to do business
The requirement on asylum seekers to claim asylum " as soon as reasonably practicable after entering the UK" did not breach Articles 3 or 8. The way in which the Secretary of State had operated this policy in relation to these particular asylum seekers had been unfair, but once these deficiencies in procedure had been remedied, there was no reason why this policy should not operate effectively.
It was not a breach of Article 3 for the claimant, an HIV sufferer, to be returned to Columbia, since there was no evidence that there would be lack of medical care there
R (BB) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Home Secretary
Proceedings before SIAC are subject to the same procedural standard under Article 5(4) ECHR whether they take place before or after the substantive judgment
R (on the application of ZO (Somalia) and others) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)  UKSC 36
The Supreme Court has ruled that the UK must provide minimum standards to asylum seekers, including the right to work, whether or not their first asylum application has failed. Asylum seekers will now be able to work if they have been waiting for over a year for a decision
R (on the application of) Reetha Suppiah and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Interveners  EWHC 2 (Admin)
A high court judge has ruled that two asylum seekers and their children were unlawfully detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration centre last year.
R v Khan  EWCA Crim 2880
Harsher sentences for people traffickers
R(on the application of Sayed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R(on the application of Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1059
Immigration rules should not be bent to favour the right to life
Rahman, R (on the application of Birmingham City Council)  EWHC 944 (Admin)
Council disregards new equality duties in terminating free legal services
Article 8 of the Convention could be engaged by the foreseeable consequences for the mental health of an asylum seeker of removal from the United Kingdom pursuant to an immigration decision, even where such removal did not violate Article 3, if the facts relied on by the applicant were sufficiently strong.
A risk to national security did not have to represent a direct threat to the United Kingdom for a refusal to grant an alien indefinite leave to remain to be justified
Roma Rights Centre
The entry clearance procedure operated by British immigration officers at Prague Airport unlawfully discriminated against Roma attempting to travel to the United Kingdom by treating them less favourably on racial grounds than non-Roma.
RT (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1285 (18 November 2010)
Asylum seekers cannot be forced to lie about their political beliefs
RU (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 651
When deporting foreign criminals is in the public interest
An asylum seeker was only entitled to resist removal to his home country or another state by reference to Article 3 if he could prove that, despite sufficient state protection if the receiving State, the authorities there were aware of a real risk of ill-treatment from law-breakers if he returned.
S v Secretary of State for Home Office
The secretary of state's decision that it was inappropriate to grant nine individuals discretionary leave to enter the United Kingdom breached the claimants' rights under Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The policy of detaining asylum seekers in reception centres fell within one of the express exceptions to the right to liberty enshrined in Article 5
Secretary of State for Home Department (Respondent) v AP (Appellant) (no 2)  EWCA Civ 731 Supreme Court
Terror suspect was entitled to continuing anonymity in his place of residence because of the risks he faced if his identity were revealed
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Javad Nasseri
 EWCA Civ 464
UK asylum legislation is not incompatible with Article 3 by providing that asylum seekers may be removed to a specified list of ‘Dublin II Regulations’ countries for determination of their asylum claim: the legislation does not restrict the UK from monitoring the asylum laws of those listed countries to ensure they do not pose a real risk of systematically violating Article 3, and it does not restrict the courts from investigating individual cases.
The failure of countries to recognise a right of conscientious objection to compulsory military service, and not to provide a non-combatant alternative to it, did not breach any instrument of human rights.
Shirin Jisha v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2043 (Admin)
When is a human rights claim a human rights claim in an immigration context? The High Court has recently considered this question in the case of a Bangladeshi citizen who had her visa cancelled when returning from a trip abroad.
Deportation of an individual to a destination state which would require him to do military service did not breach Article 3
An adoptive child could seek entry clearance under the right to respect for "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 even where he had had no chance to bond with his adoptive parents and all his experience had been with his natural parents.
Solomon v Netherlands
Article 8 does not impose a general obligation on States to respect the choice of residence of a married couple or to accept the non-national spouse for settlement in that country
Delay in the processing of an asylum seeker's claim did not give rise to a right to be removed. It did not involve a breach of his rights under Article 8 if there arose a possibility that he would have been granted exceptional leave to remain or asylum if his case had been decided more promptly.
Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom  ECHR 1045
Article 3 prohibits removal of foreign criminals to failed states
Where an asylum seeker had shelter, sanitary facilities and some money for food, even though he was not entirely well physically, it was impossible to find that his treatment verged on the inhuman or the degrading so as to reach the high threshold of Article 3.
Tekdemir v Netherlands
Asylum seekers must produce convincing and consistent evidence to substantiate any claims of torture under Article 3
A refusal of asylum support that would necessarily lead to a claimant sleeping rough on the streets amounted to to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Queen on the application of Arvdas Klimas v. Prosecutors General Office of Lithuania  EWHC 2076
The High Court considered whether a extradition request should be executed if the prison conditions and treatment of prisoners in the requesting State are such that detention there would constitute torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
TM (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 916
Is it reasonable to expect an asylum seeker on their return to their home country to lie about their political beliefs and thereby avoid persecution? This question was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in light of a potentially wide-ranging decision of the Supreme Court relating to gay refugees.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department was not bound to find the risk of a Turkish Kurd draft evader being ill-treated on return to Turkey to be a real one