Appeal No: C2/2019/2801 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM TRIBUNAL) JR/2156/2019 (R (Ramshini) v Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 31 July 2019 (JR/2156/2019) This Appeal raised the issue concerning the interpretation of section 3C the Immigration Act 1971 which, in certain defined circumstances, extends leave to enter or remain where an application is made to the Secretary of State for variation of that leave before that leave expires. In particular, the appeals raised the following issue: whether section 3C applies to extend leave where a statutory appeal is filed out-of-time but the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) extends time to appeal. Case linked with CoA case:  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1308.html Parkview Solicitors acted as representtaives for the Appellant

The case of  Capparelli (EEA Nationals – British Nationality) UKUT 162 (IAC) in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dealt with the issue of British citizenship for children born in the UK to EU, EEA, and Swiss citizens exercising free movement rights. The tribunal, in a controversial decision, found that the Home Office had wrongly issued British passports to children born before October 2, 2000, who were potentially not British citizens despite being born in the UK. This determination has broad implications, potentially impacting tens of thousands of individuals and raising questions about the acquisition of British citizenship by those born to EU/EEA nationals. Key Issues: For the Respondent:   Mr M Schwenk, of counsel, instructed by Parkview Solicitors

UT Neutral citation number: [2023] UKUT 00076 (IAC) Kutbuddin (Reg 9; EEA Regs; lawful residence) Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)         https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2023/76.html&query=(Kutbuddin)+AND+((Reg)+AND+(9 Summary: The requirement that an EFM must show prior lawful residence in another member state is not a requirement of EU law, nor is it endorsed by the CJEU. There is no basis in law for the conclusion reached by the Respondent, and the First-tier Tribunal, that these Applicants are not eligible for residence cards simply because they failed to show that they were “lawfully resident” for the entire time that they lived in Ireland with their Sponsor.  In treating the requirement at Regulation 9 (1A)(b) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 as determinative the decision-maker breached the Appellants’ rights under the EU Treaties in respect of their residence in the United Kingdom. For the Appellant: Mr C. Holmes, Counsel instructed by Parkview Solicitors

IN Upper Tribunal  (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Between Mrs Khairunnisa Rashidahmed Shaikh and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: IA/13373/2015) (Unreported) https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ia-13373-2015 For the Appellant:    Mr G. Brown, Counsel instructed by Parkview Solicitors Summary: The matter in issue was whether the evidence established that the Appellant had shown that there were “very significant obstacles to her integration” in India. The primary criticism made of the reasoning of the First Tier Tribunal was that the Tribunal set the bar too high in its interpretation of that term, and consequently that its conclusions were perverse.  It was further contended that the Tribunal’s intense focus on the Appellant’s physical needs obscured what was in fact the central plank of her case: her emotional dependency upon her family, in particular her daughter, and the social isolation that she would experience upon return, alone, to India. It was held that there was