header-logo header-logo

25 July 2014
Issue: 7616 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

Qongwane and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (the application of Singh (India)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] All ER (D) 167 (Jul)

Paragraph 353B of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC395 did not confer a discretion on the secretary of state. It was implicit in s 84(1)(f) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that the secretary of state might exercise discretions that related to immigration and asylum other than those conferred by the rules. The discretion not to remove a migrant with no rights to be in the UK was not one that was subject to any rule; it was a discretion exercised outside those rules. Paragraph 353B did not of itself create an obligation on the secretary of state to carry out a review in the circumstances to which it referred. A decision by the secretary of state that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified a finding that removal was no longer appropriate could not be appealed under s 84(1)(f) of the Act.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll