header-logo header-logo

15 July 2016
Issue: 7707 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Behary) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 702, [2016] All ER (D) 43 (Jul)

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing two linked appeals, considered the meaning of “established presence” in para 14 of Appendix C of the Immigration Rules, in respect of two appellants who had been refused an extension to their Tier 4 student visas because they had applied the day after their previous leave had expired. The court held that the word ‘current’ in para 14 did not encompass “recent” or “latest”, but referred to an existing state of affairs. It required the applicant concerned to have the relevant leave (or entry clearance) at the date on which he made his application for leave. If at the date of application that leave had expired, it was not current.

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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll