header-logo header-logo

03 March 2017
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

R (on the application of Agyarko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Ikuga) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 11, [2017] All ER (D) 168 (Feb

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of two appellant foreign nationals from a decision in which the respondent secretary of state had refused the appellants’ applications for leave to remain under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of leave to remain outside the Rules, under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In so doing it also upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) which had refused to grant them permission to seek judicial review and the decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed the appellants’ appeals. In so doing, it considered, among other things, the nature and application of the phrase “insurmountable obstacles”, as used in para EX.1 of Appendix FM to the Rules.

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