Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Immigration update podcast, episode 9


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

Welcome to the September 2014 edition of the Free Movement immigration update podcast. As normal, the material for the podcast is drawn from blog posts on Free Movement.

I start this month by going through some case law and country updates, move on to some legislative updates, discuss a couple of aspects of Surinder Singh, the EU case on British citizens making use of EU free movement rules, and then finish with a few different items on Home Office conduct and the Upper Tribunal.

If you would like to claim CPD points for reading the material and listening to this podcast, sign up here. Free Movement Members can now download the Free Movement ebooks for just £1 each in the Members Area (not including the HJT manual) and claim a 10% discount on HJT Training courses. The September update CPD course will be available in a few days’ time but there are already 24 CPD hours of courses available in the growing course library, including a course on the Immigration Act 2014 and new courses on Dublin 3 and unlawful detention.

If you listen to podcasts on your mobile phone, you can subscribe for free via iTunes here, Stitcher here or point your podcast player to podcast feed for Free Movement. Using a mobile device and subscribing has the advantage that each new podcast can be automatically downloaded for listening to on the go.

Countries and cases

Iraq, Islamic state & indiscriminate violence  —  1 September 2014

New country guidance on North Korean asylum cases  —  25 September 2014

Reported immigration case on prospective family proceedings  —  25 September 2014

More case law on prison and protection against deportation in EU law  —  25 September 2014

Italy and Dublin – Tabrizagh again (sigh)  —  19 September 2014

UKIP plan would increase UK asylum claims  —  30 September 2014

Contrasting cases on grounds of appeal  —  11 September 2014

Legislative updates

New Procedure Rules come into effect 20 October 2014  —  30 September 2014

Guidance on s.65 of Immigration Act 2014  —  26 September 2014

Surinder Singh

Abuse of EU law and Surinder Singh  —  9 September 2014

EU to investigate UK interpretation of Surinder Singh  —  2 September 2014

Home Office refuses Surinder Singh case because applicant knows law – 9 October 2014

Upper Tribunal and Home Office conduct

Upper Tribunal immigration judge recruitment drive  —  17 September 2014

Closed shop  —  29 September 2014

Family visitor receives £125,000 damages for mistreatment by immigration officials  —  4 September 2014

Home Office relying on explicitly racist reasoning to refuse human rights cases  —  29 September 2014

Reasons for Refusal Letter, 11 December 2013  —  3 September 2014

Visa denied  —  18 September 2014

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.


One Response

  1. Listening to the podcast now – what a soothing voice you have! Around the 5:30 mark you mention enhanced protection for EU nationals after 10 years, which isnt afforded to their non-EEA family members. However presumably not too many non-EEA family members in the UK under EEA regs will be impacted by this, because by then they are likely to be British citizens. Ditto EU nationals actually. However for those who dont naturalise and are in prison, surely a “fair” way would be to extend the 10 years by the length of time spent in prison? Presumably also then reflective of severity of crime and therefore less subjective in determining integration with or without adjustment for prison. Too simplistic though perhaps!