Menu My portfolio: 0

Court: Special Immigration Appeals Chamber

Commission dismisses appeal of Russian national who poses future risk to national security

D2 v The Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/112/2012

This case discusses the ECHR, Art 8 rights of a Russian national from Chechnya who was excluded from the UK in 2010, as he posed a threat to national security.

The court was asked to determine whether there were any exceptional features of the appellant’s case that showed that refusal of his entry rights into the UK was so unjustifiably harsh, that the decision was not proportionate.. The court concluded that mere separation of the appellant from his family was not a disproportionate interference with his or their Art 8 rights and that the appellant was considered as a future risk to national security. The court consequently dismissed the appeal.

Appellant held to pose direct threat to national security

L2 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SC/123/2013)

The appellant challenged a deprivation order under the British Nationality Act 1981, s 40(2), on the basis that it was disproportionate and amounted to a violation of the ECHR, art 8. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal on the ground that the deprivation order was a breach of European Union law was refused.

Refusal of application due to good character requirement challenged

MB v Secretary of State for the Home Department SN/47/2015

MB’s two applications for naturalisation were refused on the ground that he did not meet the requirement for good character, but no reasons were given. Reasons were not given on the initial application on the grounds that it posed a threat to national security. In the second application, it was held that giving reasons would not be in the public interest. There is an open and closed judgment.

SIAC found against appellant on three issues in immigration matter

Al Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKSIAC 66/2008

The SSHD made an order depriving the appellant of his British citizenship. The appellant appealed against that decision. Before the matter could proceed to a full appeal, three preliminary issues were to be decided: •         Did the deprivation order render the appellant stateless? •         Is the SSHD required to provide a minimum level of disclosure […]