When the Home Office seek to unfairly deny a man his entitlement to British citizenship and an Immigration Judge invokes justice.

This was taken from UK Immigration Justice Watch Blog.
Posted on February 24, 2017 by Alicemuzira Standard.

When the Home Office seek to unfairly deny a man his entitlement to British citizenship and an Immigration Judge invokes justice.

A man born in the UK in the early 60’s about to a parent of Nigerian Origin, who were residing in the UK at the time about 52 years ago. He had a change of name with a British citizenship and the Home Office subsequently decided to take deportation action against him after a year of changing of his name that he is not a British National.

He applied for a Certificate of Entitlement to the Right for Above as a person born in the UK before 1 January 1983. The Home Office stated that “the birth certificate that he has provided was not contemporaneous and was issued over 44years after his birth day”. The Home Office treated him as a man who was not a British and had taken someone identity.

The Home Office went ahead to stop his benefits entitlement, despite he had serious physical and mental health problems because of his immigration status.

The Home Office refused to find out details about C’s life history, the Home Office did not bother to check from Passport Office about C’s previous name and the previous passport they have issued to him in the past. The Home Office refused to acknowledge that C’s was the same person who has done a change of name.

Mr C refused to make use of legal practitioner to deal with his case while he was having problems at early stage with Home Office regarding his application. The behaviours of C’s were part of the reasons why the Home Office was doubting if he was a genuine person who has the Right of Abode previously before he went to Nigeria.

It shows clearly that the law makers could take some citizens for granted and not given what is the rightful by law to them because of the bad characters or bad dealing that they have involved in the community. As it had clearly seen in C’s case with Home Office. The Home Office clearly ignored all correspondence sent to them including all the copies of the British passport and the change of name deed in relation to the new name of C.

The Passport Office had all the documentations that shows that C’s had his new name in previous passport that was issued to him but Home Office refuse to make enquiry from Passport Office. The Home office refused to acknowledge despite that C’s Nigeria passport shows that C’s was born in the UK. It was evidence that Home Office was aware that C had a British passport application outstanding as they point it out in their refusal of the certificate of entitlement.

It is noted in this case that immigration judge was not prejudice and equitable in his judgement by looking carefully into all the 15 pages of the grounds of appeal which served as “skeleton” argument.
The Judge realised that Home Office was not comply with Direction in a deportation appeal case. The immigration Judge refused the adjournment made by Home Office’s Officer. To the Judge he wanted to know if C is British Citizen or not, he was not interested in any argument. He discovered that C speak with English accent. C provided two suitcases containing documents running over many decades of his life in UK with his names. The Judge had eyes to details and carefully looking through all the bundle pages as he mentioned them in his judgements. He was not pleased with C’s past adverse history but he prepared to accept on the balance of probabilities that C was the same person who was born in the UK all those years ago in his judgement.

In conclusion, it is clearly seen that the government official could make some errors and make the citizen to suffer pains and ignored them from their human right as in C’s case which the Home Office total adamant to allow C to get Right of abode.
The Home Office ignored to find out from Passport Office if they have any documents identify C as a British citizen instead of threatening C to be deported back to Nigeria.
For the law maker to ignored the deportations regulations is unlawful act which is clearly seen in what the Home Office did in C’s case. The Home Office refused to gather all relevant documentation to ascertain the fact in C case.

The C case shows that there is injustice and mistake in UK immigration law which the courts need to corrected


Ndidi v. The United Kingdom – 41215/14

NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINKDOM – 41215/ 14 ( Judgement: No Violation of Article 8)

An applicant, a citizen of NIGERIA who was granted indefinite leave to remain in UK after living for 14 years started from July 13, 1989 to 2003. He was convicted in relation to the supply of Class A drug and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment which was lead to him being subjected to deportation in 2010.

He appealed based on his relationship with a British national who has no single connection to NIGERIA and the son that was born on October 2012. The First tier Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 16 September 2013. As there was no exceptional factor which outweighed the public interest to revoke the deportation order of the applicant in light of the immigration Rules.

The applicant proceeded to the ECHR on 23 May 2014 against the United Kingdom.
He based his complaints on the requirements of paragraphs 398 and 399 of the immigration Rules which required the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances’ which is a breach of Article 8 of the Convention, which imposed a higher standard than that of ‘proportionality’ and he claimed that his deportation from UK would constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his family and private life in breach of Article 8.

The UK Government acknowledged the complaint made by the applicant regarding the Immigration Rules which had applied a higher standard than proportionality as it was seen to be an important principle but the applicant should have applied to appeal to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against the Administrative Court’s refusal of the application for permission to apply for judicial review. The complaint raised by the applicant was inclined by the Court to agree with UK Government that Article 8 had an important principle which potentially have satisfied the ‘second appeal’ test. But the applicant never attempted to request for judicial review but the Court based it decision on whether the decision of the Tribunal had been contrary to the principle of double jeopardy. The Court rejected the complaint that paragraphs 398 and 399 of the Immigration Rules under Article 35 s.1 of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

It was decided by the Court that states enjoy a certain margins of appreciation work in hand in hand with European supervision, the Court is empowered to give the final ruling on whether an expulsion measure is reconcilable with Article 8. The Court stated that where the Domestic Court have careful examined the facts, and applying the relevant human Rights standards consistently with the Convention and its case Law, and adequately balance the applicant’s personal interests against the more public interest in the case. The Court can not substitute its own assessment of the merits unless there are some strong reasons to do so. ( Hamesevic v. DENMARK) (Alam v. Denmark).

The Court assessed the fact that the applicant was lived in UK for 28 years and there were no rules restricting the decision making authorities’s consideration of the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The proportionality of the applicant deportation was assessed with regard to Court relevant principles concerning the expulsion of settled migrants ( Boultif, Uner v. The Netherlands) . The Court find ‘Very weight reasons’ existed to justify the applicant deportation.

The Court considered that the applicant had failed to disclose his immigration status to his partner until after she had fallen pregnant, him and partner never lived together, his partner had support of her family in the UK and his child could visit him in Nigeria and could still maintain his relationship with his child. It reached the same conclusion as the Upper Tribunal. His deportation would not constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his family and private life. The Court does not see any change in the applicant circumstances since the last date of the last domestic decision which could provide the Court with any strong reasons to substitute its own assessment of proportionality for that of domestic authorities. It was noted that the applicant’s relationship with her partner had ended and his contact with his son has been restricted to alternative Saturdays.

Held: The Court considered that the applicant’s deportation would not be in breach of Article 8 of the Human Right Conventions.

The case of Ndidi had been acknowledged by the UK Government regarding compatibility of paragraphs 398 and 399 of Immigration Rules with Article 8 applied a higher standard than proportionality arguably raised an important point of principle which could have potential could satisfied the ‘second appeals’ test. This has open an opportunity to any other case of such to go through a right channel for apples for a judicial review in domestic courts.

Having said this, I could conclude that as the applicant has made an error by not gone through a domestic Court for judicial review and by not been in relationship with his partner any longer, there is no injustice in the decision of the Court.

Migration law as a complicated issue

Migration Law could be so great to study but sometimes it is some how complicated to understand when it comes to deportation of illegal migrants especially those migrants that have leave in U.K for years and  who had never been to their parents original country.

The law in U.K regarding immigration could be very complicated to follow. Even some of the judges find it difficult to understand when it comes to follow the rules regarding illegal migrants who have leave in U.K throughout of their life.

Hello world!

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Brighton Blog Network.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site and check out our Edublogs User Guide guide.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.