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

Home Office official in court today


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

The Respondent does not accept the tribunal can reach its own conclusions about a [deportation] case.

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.


6 Responses

  1. An innovative position to take, but i suppose that is merely an extension of the executive power enforcing parliamentary will. I’d love to see the Judge’s view in his determination.

  2. by the way why are we paying the Judge’s so much to make decisions if they are now redundant?

  3. Or was the HOPO trying to say Paragraph A362 now applies to the Tribunal’s decision on Art 8 and the new Rules outweigh Huang and Kashmiri? Was s/he one of the new improved newly recruited HOPO’s or an old tired one trying to regain his her credibility??