Zane Malik 2007

A) INTRODUCTION:

Zane Malik is a barrister specialising in public law and human rights, with an emphasis on immigration, asylum, nationality and EU law. He is one of the Attorney General’s Panel Counsel to the Crown.

He has particular expertise in Judicial Reviews and Appellate work. He appears regularly in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. He has dealt with numerous landmark cases in his specialist areas. Around 200 of his cases have been reported so far and are frequently cited in the proceedings before courts and tribunals. This includes over 80 reported cases at the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal level. Senior President of the Tribunals’ Annual Report cited 7 of his recently reported cases on practice and procedure at the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. He often leads other barristers and legal teams in complex cases before higher courts.

He is a Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn and holds LLB (Hons), LLM (International Human Rights law) and PGD (Professional Legal Studies). His research work as a PhD (Candidate) at King’s College London presented a critical analysis of the United Kingdom’s asylum and human rights law, focusing on claims based on sexual orientation and gender persecution.

He regularly contributes to electronic, print and social media.

Please visit www.zanemalik.com for further information as to his work and follow him on Twitter (@MalikZane) and/or facebook (https://www.facebook.com/zane.malik.barristerr) for regular updates.

B) PRACTICE AREAS:

Constitutional and Administrative Law; Human Rights Law; Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law; European Union Law and Free Movement Rights; Terrorism, National Security and Extradition Law; Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law; Appellate Work.

C) WHAT JUDGES' SAY:

 “... And here come the sting in the tail ... Little did she [Secretary of State for the Home Department] know that representing this appellant was not one who would be prepared to lie down on the basis of the success of his particular client, but one who had the interests of those who practiced in the field and others like him very must at heart, namely Mr Zane Malik ...”: Lord Justice Moses in LB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1420.

 "Mr Zane Malik ... made two principal points and did so with characteristic clarity and conciseness": Lord Justice Aikens in R (Islam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 312.

 "Mr Malik put his submissions attractively and concisely": Lord Justice Beaton in Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 137.

 "... commendably concise and focused ...”: Lord Justice Richards in MA (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 901.

 "We were greatly assisted ... by Mr Malik, whose submissions on behalf of the respondent were succinctly and clearly made": Lord Justice Moore-Bick in Ize-Iyamu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 118.

 "Mr Malik in his succinctly and well-expressed skeleton argument took three points: Lord Justice Underhill in R (Islam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 312.

 “... helpful and well focused arguments”: Lord Justice Underhill in Universal Solicitors v Legal Ombudsman [2013] EWCA Civ 1848.

 “... as skilled as Mr Zane Malik ...”: Lord Justice Moses in R (Mirza) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2002 (Admin).

 “I would express my gratitude to Mr Malik for once again presenting the court with a very clear skeleton and making his submissions in the most economical way possible”: Lord Justice Sullivan in JO v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 377.

 “... Mr Malik has put his finger on an issue of principle ...” “... I reiterate my gratitude to him for the interesting arguments”: Lord Justice Sedley in Dhami v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1185.

 “The submissions have been presented very clearly and cogently in writing and with commendably succinct follow-up in oral hearing”: Lord Justice Richards in AH (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1564.

 Mr Malik has attractively advanced the argument ... Mr Malik advanced his case with his usual clarity and persuasiveness”: Lord Neuberger MR in AK (Nepal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 943.

 “Mr Malik’s crisp and economic submissions ...”: Lord Justice Laws in AH (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1460.

 Mr Malik [] has presented the appeal very well”: Lord Neuberger MR in Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 741.

 “... very careful and succinct ...”: Lord Justice Maurice Kay in AM (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 916.

 "The issue which arises [ ] is quite a technical one and it requires some legal experience and training to understand ... Fortunately, however, this court has the benefit of the presence and submissions of Mr Zane Malik of counsel. With his help, I was able to get to the bottom of the issues": Mr Justice Kay in R (Mohammad Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4393 (Admin).

 “Mr Mohammad made a bold submission that the decision of Richard LJ was wrong. He said the Court probably did not have the advantage of a fully argued case at a permission stage. It is apparent, however, that applicant in AH was represented by very experienced counsel, namely Mr Z Malik, and we just do not accept the proposition that the case on behalf of the applicant was not fully argued”: Lord Bannatyne in Kamran (UK NARIC – incorporation in the Rules) [2012] UKUT 00058 (IAC).

 “... extremely well and succinctly argued ... I meant what I said, [the argument] was very well put”: Mr Justice Foskett in R (Maitra) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1618 (Admin).

 “Mr Malik has put [the argument] clearly and succinctly”: Lord Justice Stanley Burnton in Miah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 261.

 “... careful and impressive ...”: Mr Justice Silber in R (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1499 (Admin).

 “... attractive ...”: Mr Justice Keeneth Parker in R (Otoo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2021 (Admin).

 "Mr Malik has advanced [the argument] with characteristic persuasive quality ...": Mr Justice Foskett in R (Midlands College and others) v Secretary for State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1145 (Admin).

 “... persuasive ...”: Lord Justice Pill in ZM (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 403.

 “... helpful and tenacious submissions”: Lord Justice Laws in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 792.

 “If I may say so, you [ ] presented this case with great economy and efficiency, and I thank you [ ] very much”: Mr Justice Calvert Smith in M v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2010] EWHC 2129 (Admin).

 “... well-argued skeleton ...”: Lord Justice Sedley, while granting permission in RS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 434.

 “... the skeleton argument is an elegantly written document setting out both the pros and cons ...”: Lord Justice Longmore in IW (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1221.

 “... ingenious argument”: Judge Mckee in MU (‘statement of additional grounds’ - long residence - discretion) Bangladesh [2010] UKUT 442 (IAC).

 "... conspicuously well-argued ...": Judge Peter Lane in R (Khairdin) v Secretary of State for the Hoe Department (NIA 2002: Part 5A) (IJR) [2014] UKUT 566 (IAC).

 “... so experienced an advocate as Mr Malik ...”: Mr Justice Cranston in the initial decision in R (Syed) and Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1059.

 “... excellent arguments of Mr Malik”: Mr Justice Mostyn in R (Thebo) v Entry Clearance Officer [2013] 146 (Admin).

 “... I ... congratulate ... Mr Malik on his submissions”: Mrs Justice Rafferty in R (Dhugana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 3408 (Admin).

 “Mr Malik ... has argued his point with great concision”: Charles George QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in R (Javed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2058 (Admin).

 “Mr Malik ... has appeared on behalf of Universal Solicitors and, if I may say so, has presented the case in a focused and persuasive way”: HHJ Jarman, sitting as a High Court Judge, in R (Universal Solicitors) v Legal Ombudsman [2013] EWHC 1453 (Admin).

D) NATABLE CASES:

a) SUPREME COURT

 TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 72 [2015] 1 WLR 3083 [2015] 4 All ER 34 [2015] INLR 647 [2015] Imm AR 1162 (Lords Neuberger, Wilson, Hughes, Toulson and Lady Hale): Compatibility of domestic asylum appellate process with the EU law and reach of the Secretary of State's obligations with regards to family tracing of unaccompanied minors.

 Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 72 [2014] 1 AC 651, [2014] 1 All ER 1157 [2014] INLR 205 [2014] Imm AR 456 [2013] 3 WLR 1517 (Lords Mance, Kerr, Reed, Carnwath and Hughes): Legality of the Secretary of State’s practice to issue removal decisions in isolation from decisions refusing variation of leave to remain.

 Alam and Anwar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 72 [2014] 1 AC 651, [2014] 1 All ER 1157 [2014] INLR 205 [2014] Imm AR 456 [2013] 3 WLR 1517 (Lords Mance, Kerr, Reed, Carnwath and Hughes): Construction of one-stop appeals provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and scope of Article 8 near miss principle.

 New London College v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 51 [2014] INLR 66 [2014] Imm AR 151 [2013] 1 WLR 2358 [2013] 4 All ER 195 [2013] PTSR 995 (Lords Hope, Clarke, Sumption, Carnwath and Reed): Legality of the system of management of educational institutions by the Secretary of State by way of policy guidance documents and sub-delegation of immigration function.

 Alvi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33 [2012] 1 WLR 2208 [2012] 4 All ER 1041 [2012] Imm AR 998 [2012] INLR 504 (Lords Hope, Walker, Clarke, Dyson and Wilson): Scope of the Crown’s prerogative to control immigration at common law; legality and effect of the Points Based System policy guidance documents and effect of the provisions that have not been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.

 Munir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 32 [2012] 1 WLR 2192 [2012] 4 All ER 1025 [2012] Imm AR 1038 [2012] INLR 546 Times Law Reports, August 6, 2012 (Lords Hope, Walker, Clarke, Dyson and Wilson): Nature of the duty on the Secretary of State under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 and constitutional issues arising from the withdrawal by the Secretary of State of the so-called seven years children policy.

b) COURT APPEAL

 Hammad Raza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 36 (Arden LJ, Beatson LJ and Christopher Clarke LJ): Proper ambit of the leeway provided by Patel (revocation of sponsor licence – fairness) India [2011] UKUT 00211 (IAC) in relation to students whose Tier 4 (General) sponsors lose their sponsorship licenses.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Chiraior [2016] EWCA Civ 77 (Lord Dyson MR, McCombe LJ and David Richards LJ): Proper ambit of the consistency principle in decision making process by the Secretary of State and the scope of his obligation to comply with the appeal decisions.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Khan [2016] EWCA Civ 137 (Lewison LJ, Beatson LJ and Sharp LJ): Construction of the phrases “variation of application” in Immigration Act 1971, “variation for the purpose of an application” in Paragraph 34E of the Immigration Rules and “the date of an application” in Appendix C to the Immigration Rules.

 Wasif and Hossain v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 (Lord Dyson MR, Underhill LJ and Floyd LJ): Proper approach to the test concerning ‘totally without merit’ marking of Judicial Review claims.

 Hassan aka SH (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ (Elias LJ, Beatson LJ and Vos LJ): Construction of Paragraph 245AA of the Immigration Rules, and the ambit and application of the relevant evidential flexibility policy.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ize-Iyamu [2016] EWCA Civ 118 (Moore-Bick LJ, Beatson LJ and Underhill LJ): Construction of the inter-linked provisions concerning right of abode and citizenship in the British Nationality Act 1948, the Nigeria Independence 1960, the Immigration Act 1971, the British Nationality Act 1981 and Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009..

 Sayaniya v Upper Tribunal [2016] EWCA Civ 85 (Arden LJ, Beatson LJ and Christopher Clarke LJ): Legality of Paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules and reach of non-fettering of discretion principle.

 Ufot v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ (Elias LJ, Floyd LJ and Vos LJ): Proper approach in cases where it is alleged that the Secretary of State has misplaced an application for leave to remain made to her, and scope of consequential exercise of residual discretion.

 Bilal Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ (Laws LJ, Beatson LJ and King LJ): Construction, ambit and effect of Articles 15, 31 and 35 of the Directive 2004/38/EC, Regulations 28 and 29 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 and section 92(4)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

 Manorama Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1175 (Aikens LJ and Lewison LJ): Legal status of oral decisions made by the Upper Tribunal and the ambit of its power to review, revisit or reverse grants of permission to appeal to itself.

 BH (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1177 (Vos LJ): Lead case on reception conditions in Malta for the purpose of returns under the Dublin Regulations.

 Iqbal, Ehsan and Mirza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 388 [2016] 1 WLR 582 (Elias LJ, Rafferty LJ and Beatson LJ): Construction of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 and consequences of making an application for leave to remain that does not comply with the procedural requirements in the Immigration Rules.

 Giri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 784 (Richards LJ, Beatson LJ and King LJ): Proper role of the reviewing Court in Judicial Review claims challenging the Secretary of State's decisions based on allegations of deception and the correct standard of proof in such case.

 Mehmood and Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 744 [2016] 1 WLR 461 (Sullivan LJ, Beatson LJ and Roth J): Lead appeals in the cases concerning removal decisions made by the Secretary of State following ETS/TOIEC test scam exposed by BBC Panorama, adequacy of out-of-country appellate process, reach of Judicial Review and constructions of various provisions in the Immigration Act 1971, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

 Vikas Singh and Maneesh Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 630 (Richards LJ, Christopher Clarke LJ and Sir Stanley Burnton): Proper approach in Article 8 claims as to the relationship between parents and adult children, and siblings and tension between Kugathas and subsequent domestic and ECtHR case law.

 Olatunde and Khoteja v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 670 [2015] WLR 4602 (Moore-Bick LJ, Elias LJ and McCombe LJ): Construction of section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (evidential bar in appeals to the First Tier Tribunal as to Points Based System appeals) and Paragraph 245DD(h) of the Immigration Rules (genuine entrepreneur test stipulation).

 Singh and Khalid v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 74 (Arden LJ, Lewison LJ and Underhill LJ): Proper approach to Article 8 claims following introduction of Appendix FM and Paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules and construction of the implementation provisions in HC 194 and HC 565.

 Oboh and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 514 (Richards LJ, Lewison LJ and McCombe LJ): Legality of the Secretary of State's request for removal decisions policy and construction of section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.

 Sukhjeet Kaur v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 13 (Pitchford LJ, Burnett LJ and Sir Timothy Lloyd): Construction of academic progress requirement for international students as stipulated in Paragraph 120 of the Appendix A to the Immigration Rules and its relation to the common law duty of fairness.

 Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 312 (Aikens LJ, Black LJ and Underhill LJ): Interplay between Appendix FM and Paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules and freestanding Article 8 claims and the ambit of the request for removal decisions policy.

 Rasheed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1493 (Moore-Bick LJ and Sir Stanley Burnton): Construction of various provisions of the Immigration Rules and policy documents concerning the deletion of Tier 1 (Post Study Work) category of the Points Based System.

 HK (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1481 (Sir Stanley Burnton): Reception Condition in Hungry for the purpose of removals under the Dublin Regulations.

 Alladin and Wadhwa v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1334 (Laws LJ, Floyd LJ and Vos LJ): Legality of grant of limited/discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom to families with children instead of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

 Qongwane and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 957 [2014] Imm AR 1179 [2015] INLR 213 (Lewison LJ, Underhill LJ and Sir Stanley Burnton): Lead appeals on construction and effect of Paragraph 353B of the Immigration Rules.

 Grace v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1334 [2014] WLR 3432 (Master of the Rolls, Vice President of the Court of Appeal Civil Division and Senior President of the Tribunals): Proper approach to criteria for “totally without merit” marking of Judicial Review claims.

 Edgehill and Bhoyroo v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 402 (Laws LJ, Jackson LJ and Black LJ): Construction of the transitional provisions in HC 194 and application for Appendix FM and Paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules to applications made before their enactment on 9 July 2012.

 Sandip Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 438 [2014] 1 WLR 3585 (Arden LJ, Jackson LJ and Sharp LJ): Vires and construction of Article 3(m) of the Excluded Decisions Order, ambit of the Lord Chancellor's power under section 11(5)(f) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal as to the Fees Awards.

 Sarkar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 196 (Moore-Bick LJ, Tommlinson LJ and Sir Robin Jacob): Ambit of the Upper Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

 Syed and Kamran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 196 (Richards LJ, Pattan LJ and Gloster LJ): Test case on status of ACCA professional qualifications and assessments by UK NARIC.

 JA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 450 [2014] 1 WLR 4291 (Moore-Bick LJ, Gloster LJ and Vos LJ): Admissibility of controversial asylum interviews and duties on the Secretary of State when interviewing minors.

 Pokhriyal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1568 [2014] PTSR 4 (Longmore LJ, Jackson LJ and Vos LJ): Construction of the academic progress requirement for international students in Paragraph 120B of the Immigration Rules.

 TN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1609 [2014] 1 WLR 2095 [2014] 2 CMLR 31 [2014] INLR 542 (Maurice Kay LJ, Beatson LJ and Briggs LJ): Compatibility of section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 with EU law, Article 39 of Procedures Directive and adequacy of protection offered by Judicial Review.

 Vagh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1253 (Rimer LJ, Tomlinson LJ and McFarlane LJ): Effect of Nationality Instructions issued by the Secretary of State on dual nationality holders in relation to the criteria specified in section 4B of the Nationality Act 1981 for registration as a British citizen.

 Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1198 (Thorpe LJ, Moses LJ and Sullivan LJ): Effect of making a one-stop statement under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on the requirements in, Table 9 of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post Study Work) Migrant.

 SS (Nepal) v Entry Clearance Officer [2013] EWCA Civ 1206 (Moore Bick LJ, Elias LJ and Lewison LJ): Construction of the word “application” in the mandatory refusal rule, Paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raju [2013] EWCA Civ 754 [2013] 4 All ER 1043 [2013] INLR 654 [2013] Imm AR 696 [2014] 1 WLR 1768 (Moses LJ, Kitchen LJ and Floyd LJ): Lead appeals arising from the deletion of the Tier 1 (Post Study Work) category of the Points Based System from the Immigration Rules.

 Virk v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 652 (Leveson LJ, Patten LJ and Briggs LJ): Ambit of the duty of fairness on the Upper Tribunal in dealing with appeals without oral hearings and the distinction between its constitutive and adjudicative jurisdiction.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ahmadi [2013] EWCA Civ 512 [2013] 4 All ER 442 [2013] Imm AR 1081 [2014] 1 WLR 401 [2014] WLR 401 (Sullivan LJ, Briggs LJ and Sir Stanley Burnton): Construction of section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and legality of the Secretary of State’s policy to issue removal decisions at the same time as refusing applications for variation of leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

 ML (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 844 (Maurice Kay LJ, Moses LJ and Sir Stanley Burnton): Proper role of the appellate court on appeals from the decisions with careless and odd errors made by the first instance judges and the scope of the requirement of anxious scrutiny.

 Parekh v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2013] EWCA Civ 679 [2013] CP Rep 38 (Hallett LJ, Davis LJ and Ryder LJ): Construction and effect of CPR 52.15(1A), which abolished the right to an oral renewal hearing following refusal of permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the papers in relation to Judicial Reviews of the Upper Tribunal non-appealable decisions.

 Sharmila Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 8 [2013] 1 WLR 2546 [2013] Imm AR 651 [2013] INLR 634 (Lord Dyson MR, Sullivan LJ and Patten LJ): Legality of the Secretary of State’s policy about adult children of Gurkha veterans and proper approach to historic injustice argument in the context of Article 8.

 MF (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 768 (Mummery LJ, Pitchford LJ and Beatson LJ): Legality and vires of the Leave to Enter Order 2000 made under section 3B of the Immigration Act 1971 and the ambit of the powers of the Immigration Officers to cancel leave to enter on an individual’s arrival in the United Kingdom.

 RJ (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1865 [2013] Imm AR 407 (Laws LJ, Tomlinson LJ and and Sir David Keene): Construction of section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and ambit of the Secretary of State’s powers to remove family members of overstayers in the United Kingdom.

 Miah (No 2) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1719 (Pill LJ, Etherton LJ and Lewison LJ): Legality of the Secretary of State's work permits system and construction of Paragraphs 128/134 of the Immigration Rules.

 Nirula v First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2012] EWCA Civ 1436 [2013] 1 WLR 1090 [2013] Imm AR 319 [2013] INLR 456 (Longmore LJ, Davis LJ and Sir Stephen Sedley): Construction of sections 92 and 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the nature of the First Tier Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction in respect of removal decisions attracting no in-country right of appeal.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hayat [2012] EWCA Civ 1054 [2013] Imm AR 15 [2013] INLR (Maurice Kay LJ, Elias LJ and Sir David Keene): Effect of the House of Lords judgment in Chikwamba in relation to the assessment of proportionality under Article 8 in marriage based Article 8 claims made by Points Based System migrants and tension between domestic and Strasbourg case law.

 Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 741[2013] 1 WLR 63 [2012] 4 All ER 94 [2012] Imm AR 898 [2012] INLR 498 Times Law Reports, August 30, 2012 (Lord Neuberger MR, Hallett LJ and Stanley Burnton LJ): Nature of the duty under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and the conflict between the Court of Appeal’s judgments in Mirza, Sapkota, and Lammichanne and AS (Afghanistan).

 MM (Ghana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 827 [2012] Imm AR 928 (Toulson LJ and Sullivan LJ): Construction of section 104(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which provides an appeal to become abandoned on the Appellant’s departure from the United Kingdom and reach of the Court of Appeal’s supervisory jurisdiction in respect of abandoned appeals.

 Alam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 960 [2012] Imm AR 974 (Maurice Kay LJ, Moore Bick LJ and Sullivan LJ): Construction and scope of section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No 7) Order 2011 and their relation to Article 8 and common law duty of fairness.

 JD (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 327 [2012] 1 WLR 3271 [2012] Imm AR 719 [2012] INLR 412 Times Law Reports, May 28, 2012 (Lord Neuberger MR, Maurice Kay LJ and Sullivan LJ): Nature and application of the second appeals test, introduced by s13(6) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, in respect of appeals to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Upper Tribunal.

 Lammichhane v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 260 [2012] 1 WLR 3064 [2012] Imm AR 683 Times Law Reports, May 30, 2012 (Maurice Kay LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ and Lewison LJ): Nature of the duty on the Secretary of State under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the conflict between the Court of Appeal's judgments in AS (Afghanistan) and Mirza.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rocky Gurung [2012] EWCA Civ 62 [2012] INLR 401 (Rix LJ, McFarlane LJ and Sir Stephen Sedley): Weight to given by the first instance Judges to public interest in deporting foreign criminals and to the views of the Secretary of State on appeals from automatic deportation orders issued under s32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.

 Miah (No 1) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 261 [2013] QB 35 [2012] 3 WLR 492 [2012] Imm AR 702 [2012] INLR 50 Times Law Reports, June 6, 2012 (Maurice Kay LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ and Lewison LJ): Scope, reach and basis of Article 8 near- miss jurisprudence and the conflict between the Court of Appeal's judgments in Pankina and Rudi.

 Sapkota v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1320 [2012] Imm AR 254 [2012] INLR 218 (Arden LJ, Jackson LJ and Aikens LJ): Construction of section 84(1)(e) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and jurisdiction of the Tribunals and the Court of Appeal in relation to appeals from the immigration decision on public law grounds; Legal consequences of the Secretary of State failure to issue removal decisions at the same time or immediately after refusing applications for leave to remain.

 LB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1420 [2012] Imm AR 637 [2012] INLR 286 (Maurice Kay LJ, Moses LJ and Baron J): Construction of the section 104(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which provides an appeal to become abandoned on the Secretary of State’s grant of leave to the Appellant.

 Julision v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1081 (Pill LJ, Etherton LJ and Sir Mark Potter): Application of section 55 of the Border, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 in relation to non-appealable decisions and the Administrative Court’s role in considering subsequent Judicial Review claims.

 AJ (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1191 [2012] Imm AR 10 (Pill LJ, Etherton LJ and Sir Mark Potter): Application of section 55 of the Border, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 in relation to appealable decisions and the First-Tier/Upper Tribunal’s role in considering subsequent appeals.

 Syed and Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1059 [2012] Imm AR 40 [2012] INLR 344 [2011] SJLB 31 (PQBD, Thomas LJ, Elias LJ): Status of the Immigration Rules and the proper approach to their construction subsequent to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Pankina and construction of Paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules and section 13 of the UK Border Act 2007.

 AQ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 833 [2011] Imm AR 832 [2011] INLR 33 (Pill LJ, Toulson LJ, Sullivan LJ): Effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in AS (Afghanistan) on the fixed historic time line requirements of the point based system and construction of one-stop appeal provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rahman [2011] EWCA Civ 814 (Thomas LJ, Moore-Bick LJ and Stanley Burnton LJ): Legality and effect of the withdrawal by the Secretary of State of the policy DP5/96 and reach of duty of consultation and fairness on the Secretary of State in relation to illegal immigrants.

 Alvi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 814 (PQBD, Jackson LJ, Tomlinson LJ): Legality and effect of the list of skilled occupation published by the Secretary of State for the purpose of Tier 2 (General) category of the point based system.

 RS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 434; [2011] INLR 734 (Carnwath LJ, Patten LJ, Baron J): Construction of Paragraph 120 of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules stipulating requirements for those international students who propose to stay in the United Kingdom to re-sit their examinations.

 QI (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 614 (Pill LJ, Longmore LJ, Etherton LJ): Construction of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 and its relation to Paragraph 245ZX(l) of the Immigration Rules.

 Mirza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 159 [2011] Imm AR 484 [2011] INLR 464 Times Law Reports, March 2, 2011 (Sedley LJ, Rimer LJ, Sullivan LJ): Legality of the Secretary of State’s practice to segregate decisions as to variation of leave from the decisions as to removal.

 AA (Nigeria) aka Adedoyin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 773 [2011] 1 WLR 564 [2010] Imm AR 704 [2011] INLR 1 [2010] NLJR 1013 Times Law Reports, July 13, 2010 (Rix LJ, Longmore LJ, Jacob LJ): Construction of the word “false” in mandatory refusal rules, Paragraphs 320(7A) and 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules.

 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719 [2011] QB 376 [2010] 3 WLR 1526 [2011] 1 All ER 1043 [2010] Imm AR 689 [2010] INLR 529 [2010] ACD 93 Times Law Reports, July 20, 2010 (Sedley LJ, Rimer LJ, Sullivan LJ): Constitutional status of the Immigration Rules and effect of incorporation of external documents in Appendix C to the Immigration Rules.

 Anwar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1275 [2011] 1 WLR 2552 [2011] Imm AR 314 [2011] INLR 111 Times Law Reports, November 25, 2010 (Sedley LJ, Lloyd LJ, Sullivan LJ): Nature and scope of the bar in section 92 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and distinction between constitutive and adjudicative jurisdiction of the Tribunal in relation to in-county and out-of-country appeals.

 AT and JK (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 567 [2010] Imm AR 675 [2010] NLJR 806 (Laws LJ, Hooper LJ, Rimer LJ): Construction and scope of section 32 of the UK Border Act 2007 and compatibility of automatic deportation provisions with Article 7 of the ECHR.

 AR (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 816 (The Chancellor, Moore Bick LJ, Jackson LJ): Weight to be attached to the interests of the children in deportation appeals.

 SA (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 210 [2010] INLR 523 (Laws LJ, Sedley LJ, Patten LJ): Construction and scope of sections 84(1)(e) and 103B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 stipulating the grounds of which an appeal could be brought to the Tribunal and then to the Court of Appeal.

 AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1076 [2011] 1 WLR 385 [2010] 2 All ER 21 [2010] Imm AR 284 [2010] INLR 111 (Arden LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Sullivan LJ): Construction and scope of the one-stop appeal provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider matters that do not relate to the decision under challenge and have not been subject of any immigration decision.

 ZH (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 8 [2009] Imm AR 450 [2009] INLR 434 Times Law Reports, April 9, 2009 (Sedley LJ, Keene LJ, Smith LJ): Construction and scope of the public interest provision in the long residence rule, Paragraph 276B(ii) of the Immigration Rules.

 AS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1495 (Sedley LJ and Sullivan LJ): Construction and scope of section 103 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where the Tribunals hold that there is no right of appeal.

c) HIGH COURT

 R (Raj and Knoll Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1329 (Admin) (Haddon-Cave J): Proper approach of the reviewing Court in Judicial Review claims challenging revocations of Tier 2 sponsorship licences and constructions of various provisions in the associated policy documents.

 R (Sunassee) v Upper Tribunal [2015] EWHC 1604 (Admin) (Edis J): Correctness of the guidance given by the Upper Tribunal in its reported decision in Gulshan as to the interplay between the Immigration Rules and Article 8.

 R (Veerabudren) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 500 (Admin) (HHJ Coe QC): Ambit and effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in MM (Lebanon) and the consequences of failing to consider Article 8 independently in refusing an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

 R (Asif) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1007 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Simon Bryan QC): Application of the principles established in Bhatti as to challenge to a further decision issued after the grant of permission to apply for Judicial Review.

 R (Woodward) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 470 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Christopher Butcher QC): Application of the principles established in Basent and Forrester and construction of Paragraphs 284(iv) and 322(5) of of the Immigration Rules.

 R (Ullah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 337 (Admin) (HHJ Taylor): Construction of the established presence requirement for international students in Paragraph 14 of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules and the application of de minimis principle to the Immigration Rules.

 R (London St Andrews College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4328 (Admin) (McGowan J): Lead challenge to the revocation of Tier 4 sponsorship licenses following the TOIEC/ETS English language test scam exposed by BBC Panorama investigation.

 R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4071 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Thomas QC): Construction of the implementation provision in HC 194 and challenge as to the failure to independently consider Article 8 while refusing an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

 R (Muhammad Ali) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4393 (Admin) (Jay J): Proper ambit of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Patel and common law duty of fairness in relation to international students seeking to study at institutions whose Tier 4 sponsorship licenses have been revoked.

 R (Shabaz Ali) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 3967 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Helen Mountfield QC): Lead case as to the legality of the removal decisions (with no right of appeal) issued in respect of those individuals who relied on ETS/TOEIC English language test certificates following the scam exposed by BBC Panorama investigation.

 R (Aliyu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 3919 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Grubb): Ambit and effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in MM (Lebanon) and the consequences of failing to consider Article 8 independently in refusing an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

 R (Shaikh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2586 (Admin) (HHJ Allan Gore QC): Legal consequences of failure to sign an application form and proper approach to the residual discretion in such cases.

 R (Javed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 3468 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Bobbie Cheema QC): Challenge to the legality of immigration detention, processing of an asylum claim though Detained Fast Track procedure and assessment of further submissions.

 R (Amarinder Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2330 (Admin) (Nicol J): Construction of the implementation provision in HC 194 and challenge as to the failure to independently consider Article 8 while refusing an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

 R (Ashrafi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2057 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Clare Moulder): Proper approach to Judicial Review challenges as to the refusals by reference to Paragraph 353B of the Immigration Rules.

 R (Eva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2546 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Mark Ockelton): Construction of section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the effect of clearly unfounded certification as to one of the two stipulated claims.

 R (Giri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1832 (Admin) (Jay J): Proper role of the reviewing Court in Judicial Review challenges to the refusals under Paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules based on allegations of deception.

 R (Oboh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 697 (Admin) (Burnett J): Legality and construction of the Secretary of State's requests for removal decisions policy.

 R (Grenville College and Birmingham College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1065 (Admin) (HHJ Coe QC): Construction and effect of Paragraph 615(b) of Tier 4 Sponsor's Policy Guidance (change of ownership and its consequences on the sponsor's license).

 R (Balwinder Kumar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 644 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Clare Moulder): Tension between the House of Lords judgment in Odelola and the Supreme Court's judgments in Alvi and Munir and the legality of the Secretary of State's policy guidance on Alvi.

 R (Midlands College, Stephens College, Jamea Al Kuthar and Kimberly College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1105 (Admin) (Foskett J): Legality of the refusal rate requirement for colleges and universities holding Tier 4 sponsor’s licence.

 R (Karsaiye) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1738 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Simon Bryan QC): Legacy case and effect of the High Court's judgment in Mohammed.

 R (Bhgat) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 772 (Admin) [2014] WLR 3710 (Deputy High Court Judge Clare Moulder): Construction of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 and validity of applications for leave to remain made while immigration appeals are pending with the First Tier Tribunal.

 R (Zia Mohammed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1208 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Tim Owen QC): Construction and effect of Paragraph 349 of the Immigration Rules (defendants of asylum applicants).

 R (Nagre) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) (Sales J): Legality and ambit of the new Immigration Rules, introduced on 9 July 2012 by HC 194, to cover Article 8 claims.

 R (Rrapj and others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2013] EWHC 1837 (Admin) (Ouseley J): Lead challenges to refusals by Legal Aid Casework to grant legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in immigration Judicial Reviews.

 R (Syed and Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 984 (Admin) (Holman J): Nature of ACCA qualifications and eligibility of ACCA professionals to qualify for Tier 1 (Post Study Work) category.

 R (Sinha) v Identity and Passport Service [2013] EWHC 711 (Admin) (Eder J): Application of the principles of res judicarta in relation to nationality matters and proper approach in relation to Judicial Reviews of the Secretary of State’s refusal to renew UK passports.

 R (Thebo) v Entry Clearance Officer [2013] EWHC 146 (Admin) (Mostyn J): Legality of the Paragraph 320(7A)/(7B) of the Immigration Rules and proper role of the Judicial Review Court in challenges to decisions taken under those provisions.

 R (Rameez) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 4302 (Admin) (Turner J) Construction and effect of Rules 10 (filing of late notice of appeal) and 17B (reinstatement of appeals struck out for fees reasons) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

 R (West London Vocational College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 31 (Admin) (Toulson LJ and Simon J): Legality of the Secretary of State’s policy guidance concerning educational institutions and construction/rationality of the so-called refusal rate requirement.

 R (Behary) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3575 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Grubb): Construction of the established presence requirement for international students in Paragraph 14 of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules and the application of de minimis principle to the Immigration Rules.

 R (Kola) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1434 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Maura McGowan QC): Legality of the delay by the Secretary of State in processing legacy backlog cases and effect of the deletion of Paragraph 395C of the Immigration Rules.

 R (Kaur) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1406 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judges Pains QC): Construction of Paragraph 245AAA of the Immigration Rules and the duty of fairness on the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of discretion under that provision.

 R (Irfan Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1536 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Syacmore): Legality of the processing by the Secretary of State of asylum claims under the Fast Track procedures in the circumstances where the stipulated deadlines are not met, and legality of the consequent detention in such cases.

 R (Alladen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1406 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Gore QC): Legality of the Secretary of State’s policy to grant discretionary leave to remain, instead of indefinite leave to remain, to certain families with children in the United Kingdom.

 R (Cayhono) v Entry Clearance Office [2013] EWHC 365 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Lewis QC): Construction of Paragraph 320(18) of the Immigration Rules which bars certain convicted individual from coming to the United Kingdom and its application in relation to those convicted in Indonesia for drug offences.

 R (Sharma) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3930 (Admin) (Collins J): Meaning and effect of the CPR 54.7A which restricts Judicial Reviews of the non-appealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal.

 R (Syed and Sbatha) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3370 (Admin); (Silber J): Reach of general risk caused by Inter-faith marriages in India in relation to certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and scope of the duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

 R (Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1487 (Admin) (Wyn Williams J): Scope of the duty under s55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 in relation to children not related to the applicant and the nature of the Secretary of State’s residual powers.

 R (Castro) v Secretary of State for the Home [2012] EWHC 281 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Geroge QC): Legality of the policy guidance documents requiring certain details to be present on the Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) for international students.

 R (Nirula) v First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2011] EWHC 3336 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Ockelton): Construction of section 92(4)(a) and 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and nature of the bar in s92(1) of that Act.

 R (Kotecha) v Secretary of State for the Home [2011] EWHC 2070 (Admin) (Burnett J): Effect of the apparent tension between Strasbourg jurisprudence and domestic case law concerning marriage based Article 8 claims.

 R (Abdul Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home [2011] EWHC 2855 (Admin) (Singh J): Legality of the Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) requirement for international students and the ambit of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Pankina.

 R (Khan) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2011] EWHC 2763 (Admin) (Ouseley J): Practical guidance as to the procedure to be followed in the Judicial Review claims challenging non-appealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal.

 R (MLC) v The Law Society and Solicitors Regulations Authority [2010] EWHC 981 Admin [2010] LSG 18 [2010] NPC (Sunders J): Construction and scope of section 37A and Schedule 1A of the Solicitors Act 1974 and effect of Rule 2.11 of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct in relation to common law right of solicitors to exercise lien.

 R (Mirza) v Secretary of State for the Home [2010] EWHC 2002 Admin (Moses LJ): Legality of the Secretary of State’s practice to segregate decisions as to leave from decisions as to removal.

 M v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2010] EWHC 2921 (Admin) [2011] RVR 74 (Calvert Smith J): Construction and scope of Regulation 2 of the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992 made under section 8 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which concerns ‘a house in multiple occupation’.

 R (AJ) v Secretary of State for the Home [2010] EWHC 2780 (Admin) (Ouseley J): Availability of Judicial Review where the Secretary of State refuses a human rights claim without issuing an appealable decision to remove, and the standard to be applied in such claims.

 R (Yasir Hussein) v Secretary of State for the Home [2010] EWHC 1220 (Admin) (Irwin J): Construction and scope of Paragraph 34J of the Immigration Rule and legality of the Secretary of State’s practice of not permitting withdrawal of applications in certain cases.

 R (Nadar) v Secretary of State for the Home [2010] EWHC 1811 Admin (Kenneth Parker J): Effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in H, Q and S in relation to claims under Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.

 R (Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home [2010] EWHC 2666 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Lord Carlile QC): Construction and effect of the Immigration Rules concerning Tier 2 category of the Immigration Rules.

 R (Abbassi) v Secretary of State for the Home [2010] EWHC 2894 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Bidder QC): Effect of the withdrawal by the Secretary of State of Policy DP5/96 and its relation to Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.

 R (Jisha) v Secretary of State for the Home [2010] EWHC 2043 (Admin) (Deputy High Court Judge Thornton QC): Construction of the phrase “human rights claim” in section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

d) Upper Tribunal

 R (Asif Raza) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Bail – conditions – variation – Article 9 ECHR) [2016] UKUT 132 (IAC) (IJR) (McCloskey P and Judge Storey): Presidential guidance on jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal and the Chief Immigration Officer as to bail matters and variation in bail conditions, and proper approach to challenges based on Article 9 of the ECHR (right to religion) to curfew requirements.

 R (Dulagan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 136 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge McGeachy): Proper ambit and application of the judgments in Chikwama and Chen in Article 8 spouse applications, and subsequent Judicial Review challenges.

 R (Miah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 23 (IAC) (IJR) (Blake J): Proper approach in Judicial Review claims challenging removal decisions made on the basis of an allegation of breach of immigration conditions following the enactment of the Immigration Act 2014.

 R (Khan and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (common costs) [2015] UKUT 684 (IAC) (IJR) (CMG Ockelton VP): Ambit of the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction as to the common costs order application and proper approach to such applications.

 R (Prodobreyev) v Secretary of State for the Home Department On-line applications: evidence) [2015] UKUT 699 (IAC) (IJR) (CMG Ockelton VP): Admissibility of screenshot evidence in Judicial Review arising from the issues concerning validity of online applications for leave to remain.

 R (SA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (human rights challenges: correct approach) [2015] UKUT 536 (IAC) (IJR) (McCloskey P): Presidential guidance on proper approach in Judicial Review challenges to the decisions made under the Immigration Rules and on human rights grounds.

 R (Masalakas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Regulations 24AA and 29AA of EEA Regs) [2015] UKUT 677 (IAC) (IJR) (Judges Storey and Peter Lane): Construction and effect of Regulations 24AA and 29AA of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006.

 R (J) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 678 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Peter Lane): Proper approach in Judicial Review claim where the Secretary of State has agreed to reconsider further submissions by reference to Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.

 R (JM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Statelessness: Part 14 of HC 395) [2015] UKUT 676 (IAC) (IJR) (Judges Allen, Afron-Jones and Markus QC): Construction of Paragraph 304 of the Immigration Rules and proper approach to claims made on the basis of alleged statelessness of children.

 R (Amitkumar Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (duration of leave - policy) [2015] UKUT 561 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Eshun): Proper ambit of the judgment in SM concerning the 2009 Discretionary Leave policy instruction and claims as to entitlement for indefinite leave to remain of families with children.

 Deelah and others (section 117B – ambit) [2015] UKUT 515 (IAC) (McCloskey P): Presidential guidance on constructions and application of sections 117A and 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

 R (Saqib Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (right of appeal; alternative remedy) [2015] UKUT 353 (IAC) (IJR)(Judge O’Connor): Proper approach to be adopted in Judicial Review challenges raising disputes about right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.

 R (Shabani) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Legacy - Residence - SOS's Limited Duty) [2015] UKUT 403 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Allen): Upper Tribunal's review of the case law in relation to the so-called legacy cases and the Secretary of State's associated obligations.

 R (Hagos) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin returns – Malta) [2015] UKUT 271 (IAC) (IJR) (McCloskey P and Judge O’Connor): Presidential guidance on reception condition in Malta for return under Dublin Regulations.

 R (AB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 352 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Rintoul): Deportation of foreign criminal convicted for sexual offences and certification of his human rights claim.

 R (HRP and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 351 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge O’Connor): Proper approach to Judicial Review challenges as to Paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules and compatibility of the duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 with the Immigration Rules introduced by HC 194.

 R (Oyekan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 410 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Freeman): Burden of proof in relation to proxy marriages and alternative remedy.

 R (Chirairo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 411 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Freeman): The obligation of the Secretary of State to comply with the appeal determinations and application of consistency principle.

 R (Lewis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 482 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Chalkley): Challenge to a decision made under Paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules and on free standing Article 8 grounds.

 R (Kuruwitage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 402 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Gleeson): Challenge to the removal decision made on the basis of an allegation of working in breach of immigration conditions and adequacy of the out-of-country appellate process.

 R (Zia and Zubair) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 191 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Southern): Application of common law principle of legitimate expectation arising from the information given by the Secretary of State's employees on UK Visas and Immigration telephone helpline.

 R (SN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (striking out - principles) [2015] UKUT 227 (IAC) (IJR) (McCloskey P): Presidential guidance as to the Upper Tribunal's powers to strike out Judicial Review claims for non-compliance with its orders and direction.

 R (Vidales) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 166 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Ehsun): Application of the request of removal decisions policy in relation to overstayer children.

 R (DN) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 97 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Peter Lane): Challenge to the refusal of further submissions as fresh claim and application of latest Country Guidance on Sri Lanka.

 R (Raja) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 58 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Gill): Challenge to the refusal based on Appendix FM and Paragraph 276ADE/276B of the Immigration Rules made following settlement of an earlier Judicial Review claim by a consent order.

 R (Khairdin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (NIA 2002: Part 5A) [2014] UKUT 166 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge Peter Lane): Proper approach to sections 117A, 117B and 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in Judicial Review claims pursued on Article 8 grounds.

 R (Fakih) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKUT 513 (IAC) (IJR) (Judge O’Connor): Lead challenge to the policy of permitting no recourse to public funds to those who are given leave to remain on the basis of their exceptional circumstances.

 Bhimani (Student: Switching Institution: Requirements [2014] UKUT 516 (IAC) (Judge Allen): Construction of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2002 and legal consequences of an international students changing his educational institution without seeking permission from the Secretary of State.

 R (Mohamed Bilal Jan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (section 10 removal) [2014] UKUT 513 (IAC) (IJR) [2014] Imm AR 1004 [2015] INLR 226 (Bean J, CMG Ockelton VP and Judge Latter): Availability of Judicial Review in the circumstances where the impugned decision carries an out-of-country statutory right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal and correctness/ambit of the High Court’s judgment in Thapa.

 Castro (Removals: s.47 (as amended)) Philippines [2014] UKUT 234 (IAC) (CMG Ockelton VP and Judge Kopieczek): Construction of section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, as amended by section 51 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

 Nasim and others (Raju: reasons not to follow?) [2013] UKUT 610 (IAC) (Judges Allen and Lane): Lead appeal on the effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Raju as to Tier 1 (Post Study Work) category.

 Khanum & Others (paragraph 353B) [2013] UKUT 311 (IAC) (CMG Ockelton VP and Judge Allen): Lead appeals on the ambit of Paragraph 353B of the Immigration Rules enacted on deletion of Paragraph 395C of the Immigration Rules.

 Singh (fee award: ancillary decision) [2013] UKUT 179 (IAC) (Judges Allen and Martin): Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal to consider appeal against fee awards made by the First Tier Tribunal.

 R (Matthew) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKUT 466 (IAC) (FCJR) (Judge Pater Lane): Proper approach to repeat fresh claims following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in TM (whirligig case).

 Mushtaq (s 85A(3)(a): scope: academic progress) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 61 (IAC) (Judge Peter Lane): Construction of section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and Paragraph 120A of the Immigration Rules which stipulates the academic progress requirement for international students.

 R (Mureed Hussain) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKUT 438 (IAC) (FCJR) (Judge Jordan): Fresh claims jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal to consider challenges arising from the legacy backlog case and proper approach to be taken in such cases.

 Khatel and others (s.85A: effect of continuing application) Nepal [2013] UKUT 44 (IAC) [2013] INLR 439 (Blake P and Judge Coker): Lead Tier 1 (Post Study Work) category cases concerning individuals who graduated after the category was abolished on construction of sections 85, 85A and 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and Table 10 of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules.

 Adamally and Jaferi (section 47 removal decisions: Tribunal procedures) Sri Lanka [2012] UKUT 414 (IAC) [2013] Imm AR 306 (CMG Ockelton VP and Judge Hanson): Tribunal procedures in relation to removal decisions issued by the Secretary of State under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

 MN and others (Ahmadis - country conditions - risk) Pakistan CG [2012] UKUT 389 (IAC) (Judges Storey, Gleeson and Dawson): Country guidance on condition of Ahmadis in Pakistan.

 Mubu (immigration appeals - res judicarta) Zimbabwe [2012] UKUT 398 (IAC) (UT Judge Storey and UT Judge O'Connor): Application of the public law principles of res judicarta in relation to immigration appeal and proper approach to earlier appeal decisions.

 Ali (s.120-PBS) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 368 (IAC) [2013] Imm AR 165 [2013] INLR (Judges Allen and Chalkley): Construction section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 following enactment of section 85A of that Act.

 Ahmadi (s47. decision; validity; Sapkota) Afghanistan [2012] UKUT 147 (IAC) [2012] Imm AR 875 (Judge Peter Lane): Construction of section 47 of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and legality of the Secretary of State’s policy to issue removal decisions at the same time as refusing leave to remain.

 Shahzad (s85A: Commencement) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 81 (IAC) (CMG Ockelton VP and Judge Judge Sothern): Effect of the Article 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (Commencement No 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011.

 Fiaz (cancellation of leave to remain - fairness) India [2012] UKUT 57 (IAC) [2012] Imm AR 497 [2012] INLR 385 (Blake P and Judge King): Legality and effect of Article 13(5) of the Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2000 made under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971; Legality of election by the Immigration Officer to use the cancelation provision instead of curtailment provision; Construction of Paragraph 321A of the Immigration Rules.

 Patel (consideration of sapkota - unfairness) India [2011] UKUT 484 (IAC) (Blake P and Judge Perkins): Scope and reach of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Sapkota and public law duty of fairness on the Secretary of State.

 Butt (para 245AA(b) “specified documents” judicial verification) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 00353 (IAC) (CMG Ockelton VP and Judge Southern): Scope of Paragraph 245AA(b) of the Immigration Rules and the proper role of the Tribunal’s judges when an Appellant provides a document, for the first time, at the hearing so as to give to no opportunity to the Secretary of State to verify its authenticity.

 Qureshi (Tier 4 - effect of variation - App C) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 412 (IAC) [2012] Imm AR 171 [2012] INLR (Judges Kekic and Dawson): Effect of variation of application under section 3C(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 on maintenance requirements in Appendix C to the Immigration Rules and construction of the expression “date of application”.

 Kishver (“limited leave”: meaning) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 00410 (IAC) (CMG Ockelton VP and Judge Southern): Construction of section 10(i)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

 RG (Automatic deport - Section 33(2)(a) exception) Nepal [2010] UKUT 273 (IAC) [2012] Imm AR 84 [2011] INLR 629 (Blake P and Judge Eshun): Effect of Maslov v Austria in automatic deportations under s32 of the UK Border Act 2007.

 MU (‘statement of additional grounds’ long residence discretion) Bangladesh [2010] UKUT 442 (IAC) (Judge McKee): Construction of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 and its relation to Paragraph 276B(i) of the Immigration Rule in cases where the required 10 years residence is accumulated while an appeal is pending.

 MS (AS & NV considered) Pakistan [2010] UKUT 117 (IAC) (Judge Allen): Effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in AS (Afghanistan) on appeals arising from the refusal of applications made under the Points Bases System.

E) IN PRESS:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3535987.ece

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/333744/-Hammer-blow-to-immigration-s...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/18/supreme-court-immigration-rule...

http://www.thelawyer.com/lewis-silkin-malik-law-and-landmark-act-as-supr...

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-framework-immigration-collapses

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/18/skilled-migrant-ruling-emergenc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18888241

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9409629/Supreme-Court...

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/court-strikes-down-key-uk-migrant-rule...

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/nri/visa-and-immigration/britai... workers/articleshow/15032851.cms