header-logo header-logo

03 March 2017
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Agyarko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Ikuga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 11, [2017] All ER (D) 168 (Feb

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of two appellant foreign nationals from a decision in which the respondent secretary of state had refused the appellants’ applications for leave to remain under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of leave to remain outside the Rules, under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In so doing it also upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) which had refused to grant them permission to seek judicial review and the decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed the appellants’ appeals. In so doing, it considered, among other things, the nature and application of the phrase “insurmountable obstacles”, as used in para EX.1 of Appendix FM to the Rules.

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll