Advisory: Reported Determinations

There's a new batch of reported determinations out.   

One of these affects this community directly, the determination goes along the lines of...

While in rare cases a policy may be expressed in such absolute terms that, on the facts as found, an appeal may be allowed outright under the policy, this should not be confused with the general intention which appears to lie behind the policy.  Thus, a policy which allows overage children to be reunited with a settled sponsor in certain circumstances, and whose purpose may appear to be the avoidance of the 'stranded sibling' phenomenon, should not be taken to mean that, in most cases, entry clearance will be granted to overage children.  Apart from anything else, the policy may have been more loosely drafted than an immigration rule, and the discretion which it imports ought to be exercised by the respondent at first instance.


Affecting us less directly, but worth noting is...

In cases in which the Secretary of State alleges that a claimant falls foul of para 320(1A) of Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 395 as amended, it will be important to follow the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in AA (Nigeria) [2009] EWCA Civ 773 that knowing deception is needed to show false representations

And more abstractly, but still of tangential interest...

"An Immigration Judge should not go behind evidence of a certificate of naturalisation as an Italian citizen on the basis of concerns about the bona fides of the marriage that resulted in the naturalisation. It would be contrary to public policy for the Immigration Judge to dispute Italian nationality or the legal validity of the marriage resulting from it."

If these things have affected you, or if you suspect that they will affect a future application, you should absolutely consult a law firm that has credentials in the Law Society of England and Wales.