Upper Tribunal’s President, Mr Justice Lane, allows this important deprivation of nationality appeal, explains the jurisdiction and role the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, and concludes that Upper Tribunal’s Vice President’s decision in Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles)  UKUT 196 (IAC) (paragraph 5 of the Judicial Head Note) should not be followed. Zane Malik appeared for the successful Appellant.
The Court of Appeal deals with Article 3 medical health cases and says that it is “highly desirable that the Supreme Court should consider the impact of [the European Court of Human Rights judgment in] Paposhvili for the purpose of domestic law at an early stage”  and a stay on removal “is likely to justified” if “the test set out in Paposhvili at paragraph 183” is met .
The Court of Appeal gives authoritative guidance on all 8 versions of “evidential flexibility” policy, Rule 245AA and procedural fairness issues in Points Based System cases, and says that “the web of Rules and Guidance has become so tangled that even the spider has difficulty controlling it ”. Zane Malik appeared for the Home Secretary, who succeeded in these appeals. Shahadoth Karim and Darryl Balroop appeared for two of the Appellants.
The Court of Appeal gives its judgment in SM-v-SSHD  EWCA 32, dealing deals with the issue of costs arising from the claim stayed behind the Supreme Court litigation in TN (Afghanistan)-v-SSHD  UKSC 40, where the High Court ordered no costs. Zane Malik appeared for the Home Secretary and was successful, as the appeal was dismissed. He had appeared for the Claimant in TN (Afghanistan) litigation.
The Court of Appeal allows the Home Secretary’s appeal and quashes the decisions of the Upper Tribunal and the First Tier Tribunal allowing a foreign criminal’s appeal on Articles 3 and 8 grounds. The Senior President of the Tribunals (with whom Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Henderson agree), importantly, says that:
The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Anwar v SSHD  EWCA Civ 2134 earlier today. The Court allows this important appeal and concludes that the immigration rules do not of themselves lawfully impose a condition restricting a student’s place of study in the United Kingdom.
Landmark decision handed down today. The CA holds, amongst other things, that an out of country appeal is not an adequate alternative to judicial review in various s.10 TOEIC removal cases.
Michael Biggs, whose arguments were referred to extensively in the judgment, acted for the appellant RK. The case is one of a string of recent important cases in which Mr. Biggs has appeared.
Zane Malik acted for the appellant AF.
The judgment should be available on BAILII shortly.
Mehtab Malhotra on Deprivation of Nationality – Home Office Failed to Establish Fraud by Appellant- Evidence Inadequate
See Judgement https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/dc-00020-2016
Shahadoth Karim Wins Important Challenge to SSHD Seeking to Remove a British Citizen
Please visit the following link for Judgement Miah, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2925 (Admin) (17 November 2017)