In response to the Coronavirus we have increased our telephone & video call appointments, now available 7 days a week from 7am to 10pm

COVID 19 Update. 3rd of April 2020: Our offices remain open for business. New clients can choose to whether
they prefer a face to face or a video appointment. We have had no known cases in the office. Call for more details. Click here

Head Office:
5th Floor Maddox House, 1 Maddox Street, Mayfair, London, W1S 2PZ

Case Law Update: Disabilities, Female Students, False Imprisonment and Afghan Sikhs

Examining the Restricted Leave Policy

R (on the application of MBT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (restricted leave; ILR; disability discrimination) [2019] UKUT 414 (IAC) a Judicial Review application in the Upper Tribunal, considered whether the Secretary of State’s ‘Restricted Leave Policy’ engaged Article 8 ECHR and to what extent it should be considered. 

The headnote sums up the case effectively: 

(i) A decision of the Secretary of State not to grant indefinite leave to remain to a person subject to the restricted leave policy (“the RL policy”) does not normally engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Article 8 may be engaged by a decision to refuse to grant indefinite leave to remain where, for example, the poor state of an individual’s mental and physical health is such that regular, repeated grants of restricted leave are capable of having a distinct and acute impact on the health of the individual concerned.

 (ii) Once Article 8 is engaged by a decision to refuse indefinite leave to remain under the RL policy, the import of Article 8 will be inherently fact-specific and must be considered in light of the criteria set out in MS (India) and MT (Tunisia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1190. The views of the Secretary of State attract weight, given her institutional competence on matters relating to the public interest and the United Kingdom’s reputation as a guardian of the international rule of law.

 (iii) To obtain indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules on the basis of long (partially unlawful) residence in cases involving no suitability concerns, paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii), taken with paragraph 276DE, requires a total of 30 years’ residence. A person who satisfies paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii) following 20 years’ residence is merely entitled to 30 months’ limited leave to remain on the ten-year route to settlement.

 (iv) Paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 disapplies the prohibition against disability discrimination contained in section 29 of the Act in relation to a decision to grant restricted leave that is taken in connection with a decision to refuse an application for a more beneficial category of leave in the circumstances set out in paragraph 16(3).

 (v) To the extent that paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 disapplies the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of disability, there is a corresponding modification to the public sector equality duty imposed on the Secretary of State by section 149 of the Act.

A lack of provisions for women subject to domestic abuse 

In the Admin Court OA v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 276 (Admin) found that the requirement in the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 that student loan applicants should be lawfully resident in the UK for three years prior to their course beginning, indirectly discriminated against women and violated Article 14 ECHR because it did not include any provision for students who had gaps in lawful residence as a result of domestic abuse and violence suffered. 

False imprisonment

In the Supreme Court R (on the application of Jallo v SSHD [2020] UKSC 4 found that the imposition of some curfew requirements of a migrant subject to deportation could constitute imprisonment for the purposes of ‘false imprisonment’.  

Afghan Sikhs

In the European Court of Human Rights ASN and Others v, the Netherlands (Application numbers 68377/17 and 530/18) found that Sikhs in Afghanistan were not, as a group, systematically exposed to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR.  

To learn more about these cases or immigration law, feel free to contact our legal consultants at 0207 118 4546 or via email at info@westkin.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove That You Are Human! *

Immigration Cases

What we're saying

@westkinlaw

IMMIGRATION BLOG

Read All

  • How to apply for bail?

    If you are detained in immigration detention, whether that is in an immigration detention centre, or in a prison, you can apply for bail. This ...

    Read More

  • How to deal with a civil penalty for employing illegal workers: Part 2

    Write a written objection The first stage in dealing with a civil penalty that’s been issued is to write a written objection to the Home ...

    Read More

  • Case Law Update: Disabilities, Female Students, False Imprisonment and Afghan Sikhs

    Examining the Restricted Leave Policy R (on the application of MBT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (restricted leave; ILR; disability discrimination) [2019] UKUT ...

    Read More

  • How to deal with a civil penalty for employing illegal workers: Part 1

    This blog considers the civil penalties for employing illegal workers, although there are also criminal penalties for knowingly employing an illegal worker. If an employer ...

    Read More

  • What to do if you’ve employed a disqualified person

    Section 21 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality 2006 makes it an offence for an employer to employ anyone knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that ...

    Read More

Book Your
Free Consultation