header-logo header-logo

15 July 2016
Issue: 7707 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Behary) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 702, [2016] All ER (D) 43 (Jul)

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing two linked appeals, considered the meaning of “established presence” in para 14 of Appendix C of the Immigration Rules, in respect of two appellants who had been refused an extension to their Tier 4 student visas because they had applied the day after their previous leave had expired. The court held that the word ‘current’ in para 14 did not encompass “recent” or “latest”, but referred to an existing state of affairs. It required the applicant concerned to have the relevant leave (or entry clearance) at the date on which he made his application for leave. If at the date of application that leave had expired, it was not current.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll