Shwan

As the above appeal has now been dismissed, the Secretary of State's response to the judgment is awaited. This could mean changes to the Immigration Rules or operation in order to comply with the judgment.

The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal stating that the appellant had lived in the Baghdad area. It was reasonable to expect him and his wife to go back to live there given that there was a mix of Shia and Sunni areas in Baghdad and in light of the level of improvement there. Reference was made to the numerous reports and objective material in the case.

The Tribunal was satisfied that there was a genuine intention on behalf of the appellant to visit the family in the UK. The decision was ultimately remade and the appellants appeal against the decision of the entry clearance officer was allowed. The Tribunal concluded the following for future clarification:

An appellant will not necessarily be granted entry even if successful in an appeal against a refusal of entry. The Entry clearance office must have regard to the appellant's circumstances at the time of the decision

Owolabi (Tier 2 - skilled occupations) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 313 (IAC) (18 July 2011): This case concerned a Nigerian appellant who came to the UK as a Highly Skilled Migrant in 2008. He applied for leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant in 2009, under the Points Based System (PBS). Tier 2 is for skilled workers with a job offer, the aim of which is to fill gaps in the UK labour force.

E-A (Article 8 - best interests of child) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 315 (IAC) (22 July 2011): A Nigerian couple and their two children appealed against a decision by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to refuse to extend their leave to remain in the UK, relying in particular on the recent Supreme Court judgement of ZH (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4 to argue that the best interests of the children had not been taken into account.

Member States enjoy a ‘margin of appreciation' to decide their own immigration policies. In particular, Article 8 cannot be considered to ‘impose on a state a general obligation to respect a married couple's choice of country for their matrimonial residence' (Y v Russia [2010] 51 EHRR 21).

There were no Article 8 (right to family life) European Convention of Human Rights concerns, except in the case of the appellant whose wife and daughter were with him in the UK. The Court found that there was no breach of Article 8 because the family could return to Pakistan without any interference to their family life.

Following recent reforms of the student visa category, the UK Border Agency has announced that all Tier 4 sponsors must obtain highly trusted sponsor status and receive a satisfactory review or inspection by one of the publicly recognised inspection bodies approved for Tier 4 purposes.

However, on the facts the SSHD was entitled to be ‘sceptical' about new evidence produced at such a late date, a few days before deportation was due. The appellant had failed to explain why the evidence was produced at the last minute, and this cast doubt on the witness statement relied on. The SSHD's decision that the new evidence did not constitute a fresh asylum claim was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed.