Welcome to the June 2017 edition of the Free Movement immigration update podcast. This month I’m starting with the current UK proposals on the future status of EU citizens in the UK and a few (!) problems with those plans, covering the major Supreme Court decision on the “deport first, appeal later” regime, taking a look at the new “safe return review” the Home Office now conducts before granting settlement to refugees and then whizzing through some important but fairly dry judgments on Dublin returns and subsidiary protection, service of immigration decisions, the law of appeals and automatic strike out of judicial review cases in the Upper Tribunal.

The material is all drawn from the June 2017 blog posts on Free Movement.

If you would like to claim CPD points for reading the material and listening to this podcast, sign up here as a Free Movement Member. There are now over 40 CPD hours of training materials available to members. You can find all the available courses here.

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 the 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.

To access previous Free Movement immigration update podcasts click here.

The main content of the downloadable 25 minute audio podcast follows the (non chronological) order of content below:

• Analysis: what is the UK proposing for EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in the EU?
• Supreme Court rules “deport first, appeal later” is unfair and unlawful
• In depth look at the new Home Office settlement policy for refugees after five years
• Can a person granted subsidiary protection be transferred under Dublin III?
• When must the tribunal allow appeals against Home Office decisions containing errors of law?
• Zimbabwean national unlawfully detained after Home Office fails to serve immigration decision
• Test cases on automatic strike out of claims lead to changes at the Upper Tribunal