Briefing: what is leave outside the rules?
23 August 2024
No Comments
Anyone whose life consists of daily references to the immigration rules will tell you that the experience can feel a lot like deep ocean exploration
Anyone whose life consists of daily references to the immigration rules will tell you that the experience can feel a lot like deep ocean exploration
The Court of Appeal has reiterated the process that should be followed in article 3 medical treatment cases in relation to the shifting burden of
Practitioners will no doubt be aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17.
In HA (expert evidence, mental health) Sri Lanka [2022] UKUT 111 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers whether the removal of a Sri Lankan man with
Seriously ill migrants claiming humanitarian protection status must show that a persecutor would intentionally deprive them of medical treatment, the Upper Tribunal has confirmed. The
The ripple effects of Paposhvili v Belgium [2016] ECHR 1113 continue to be felt at the boundary of Article 3 ECHR. In the first reported
Lawyers interested in deportation will be aware of the decision in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, handed
In the case of AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17 the Supreme Court has widened the protection available to
AXB (Art 3 health: obligations; suicide) Jamaica [2019] UKUT 397 (IAC) is the latest in a series of cases which have tried to transpose the
In Savran v Denmark (application no. 57467/15) the European Court of Human Rights has reinforced the importance, in Article 3 medical treatment cases, of the
The deportation case of a Nigerian man with sickle cell disease, resident in the UK for almost three decades, has been bouncing around the UK
In MM (Malawi) [2018] EWCA Civ 2482 the Court of Appeal has again confirmed that there is indeed a discrepancy between the domestic law on
The Court of Appeal last week issued “authoritative guidance” on Article 3 medical challenges against removal, reflecting the European Court of Human Rights’s decision in Paposhvili
In HK, HH, SK and FK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871 the Court of Appeal found that asylum
When is it a breach of Article 3 to remove someone with a severe, possibly terminal, medical condition to a country where they will not
On 13 December 2016, the Grand Chamber handed down its much-awaited decision in Paposhvili v Belgium (Applcn No. 41738/10). The decision: (1) clarifies, widens and
Hareef, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 873 (Admin) is a case that was heard in
Unfortunately the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Article 3 health test cases in GS (India) & Ors v The Secretary of State for the
Human rights medical treatment expulsion cases are perhaps some of the most stark, most difficult and most challenging cases faced by a human rights lawyer.
The case of Rose Akhalu (health claim: ECHR Article 8) [2013] UKUT 400 (IAC) offers a glimmer of hope to some migrants dependent on health
Some time ago, I put up an angry post (it is never a good idea to publish in anger) about the case of GS (Article 3
Anyone whose life consists of daily references to the immigration rules will tell you that the experience can feel a lot like deep ocean exploration in the Mariana Trench: despite constant research, you will still make new discoveries, even when you think there are no further depths to which you...
The Court of Appeal has reiterated the process that should be followed in article 3 medical treatment cases in relation to the shifting burden of proof, as set out in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 17 and in the headnote to the Upper Tribunal’s consideration of the case. This case...
Practitioners will no doubt be aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17. The justices endorsed the European Court of Human Rights decision in Paposhvili v Belgium (application no. 41738/10) and thereby materially lowered the threshold for resisting...
In HA (expert evidence, mental health) Sri Lanka [2022] UKUT 111 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers whether the removal of a Sri Lankan man with mental health difficulties would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment. Where a person’s mental...
Seriously ill migrants claiming humanitarian protection status must show that a persecutor would intentionally deprive them of medical treatment, the Upper Tribunal has confirmed. The case is NM (Art 15(b): intention requirement) Iraq [2021] UKUT 259 (IAC). NM suffers from end-stage chronic kidney disease and needs dialysis to stay alive....
The ripple effects of Paposhvili v Belgium [2016] ECHR 1113 continue to be felt at the boundary of Article 3 ECHR. In the first reported decision of its kind, the Upper Tribunal has found that the “modified” (for which, read “lowered”) test for Article 3 breach in medical treatment cases...
Lawyers interested in deportation will be aware of the decision in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, handed down in April 2020. In that case, the Supreme Court set out the correct test that should be applied to cases where the courts are...
In the case of AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17 the Supreme Court has widened the protection available to seriously ill migrants facing deportation from the UK and subsequent death for want of medical treatment. The judgment opens by noting that the case...
AXB (Art 3 health: obligations; suicide) Jamaica [2019] UKUT 397 (IAC) is the latest in a series of cases which have tried to transpose the decision of Paposhvili v Belgium (application no. 41738/10) into domestic law. Paposhvili was an unusual case in which the applicant had died before the European...
In Savran v Denmark (application no. 57467/15) the European Court of Human Rights has reinforced the importance, in Article 3 medical treatment cases, of the obligation on governments to obtain assurances where there is any doubt as to the impact of removing a seriously ill migrant to another country. The...
The Court of Appeal last week issued “authoritative guidance” on Article 3 medical challenges against removal, reflecting the European Court of Human Rights’s decision in Paposhvili v Belgium. Lord Justice Sales, giving the court’s judgment in AM (Zimbabwe) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA...
In HK, HH, SK and FK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871 the Court of Appeal found that asylum seekers could be returned to Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation. Removal would not violate the appellants’ Article 3 rights, despite medical reports on their...
When is it a breach of Article 3 to remove someone with a severe, possibly terminal, medical condition to a country where they will not receive the care they need? When they’re days away from death? When it will halve their lifespan? What level of pain is required? What constitutes...
On 13 December 2016, the Grand Chamber handed down its much-awaited decision in Paposhvili v Belgium (Applcn No. 41738/10). The decision: (1) clarifies, widens and provides guidance on the circumstances in which an alien suffering from a serious illness can resist removal under art 3 ECHR; and (2) gives rise...
Unfortunately the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Article 3 health test cases in GS (India) & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40 (30 January 2015) does not change very much for migrants with serious health conditions seeking to remain in the...
Human rights medical treatment expulsion cases are perhaps some of the most stark, most difficult and most challenging cases faced by a human rights lawyer. They concern life itself and will often involve a miserable, painful death if unsuccessful. The claimant and his or her family will be understandably desperate...
The case of Rose Akhalu (health claim: ECHR Article 8) [2013] UKUT 400 (IAC) offers a glimmer of hope to some migrants dependent on health care in the UK facing removal. These cases can involve people being sent to their country of origin to die an avoidably early and unpleasant...
