*/
Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had all claimed asylum in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as minors. Their claims had been refused and they had been granted discretionary leave to remain, in the case of the appellant in the first appeal, for periods of under one year, which, they contended, excluded them from appealing against the rejection of their asylum claims because s 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided that an appeal against the rejection of an asylum application could only be made where the person had been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year. Appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on the ground that ss 82 and 83 of the 2002 Act were incompatible with their rights to an effective remedy under art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting an withdrawing refugee status) were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decisions, holding that the scheme under s 83 of the 2002 Act satisfied the requirement of providing an effective remedy for an applicant who was refused asylum, but given leave to remain for a matter of months, and was accordingly, not incompatible with art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85.
Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had all claimed asylum in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as minors. Their claims had been refused and they had been granted discretionary leave to remain, in the case of the appellant in the first appeal, for periods of under one year, which, they contended, excluded them from appealing against the rejection of their asylum claims because s 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided that an appeal against the rejection of an asylum application could only be made where the person had been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year. Appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on the ground that ss 82 and 83 of the 2002 Act were incompatible with their rights to an effective remedy under art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting an withdrawing refugee status) were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decisions, holding that the scheme under s 83 of the 2002 Act satisfied the requirement of providing an effective remedy for an applicant who was refused asylum, but given leave to remain for a matter of months, and was accordingly, not incompatible with art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85.
Signs of real change – more work to be done
Philip N Bristow explains how to unlock your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step
With the property market witnessing significant changes since the beginning of the pandemic, Fleet Street Wealth’s Managing Director Julian Morgan considers the future of the home, the second home and the office
In partnership with the Bar Council, LexisNexis is offering up to 60% off its extensive webinar offering.
Chambers is expanding its team.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
The pandemic and widespread introduction of remote hearings has been an interesting start to a career at the Bar: Lola-Rose Avery shares a day in her life
Bridging the Bar (BTB) is opening up the Bar to people from non-traditional backgrounds. BTB mentor, Laurence Cooper and his mentee, Jake Acock chat about the mentoring scheme
Lack of networking and advocacy opportunities have been pupils biggest challenges during COVID.Melissa Elsworth,Thomas Harvey andMani Basi explain how theFamily Law Bar Associations expanding Pupillage Project is helping to fill the gap
Your guide to making it as a NY attorney and practical issues for English barristers. By Teresa Rosen Peacocke and Alex Haines
Jason M Hadden's ultimate top ten of TV legal dramas
