=======================================

     No-Deportations – Residence Papers for All

=======================================

 

Continuing Conflicts That Create Refugees – July 2018

 

Pakistani Man Refused Residence In UK Over ‘Sham Marriage’ Wins Appeal

Court of Appeal Refuses to Reverse Deportation to Pursue In-Country Appeal

Ireland: Government Unveils New Regime for Asylum Seekers to Access Labour Market

 

CPIN: Albania: People trafficking

 

********************************************

 

Continuing Conflicts That Create Refugees – July 2018

 

Deteriorated Situations for June: Somalia, Somaliland, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia

 

Improved Situations for June: Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Korean Peninsula, Macedonia

 

Conflict Risk Alerts for July: Somalia, Somaliland, Syria, Yemen

 

Resolution Opportunities for July: Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen

 

 Global Overview June 2018: In June, Yemeni forces backed by the United Arab Emirates accelerated their offensive to take the Huthi-held city of Hodeida. A fleeting opportunity exists to find a mediated settlement and avoid prolonged urban warfare. In Syria, pro-government forces intensified efforts to retake territory in the south west, risking worse violence in July, while in Libya, new fighting over oil facilities aggravated tensions. The conflict between Somalia’s Puntland and Somaliland spread, and looks set to escalate; attacks linked to Nigeria’s farmer-herder conflict left over 200 dead; and radical Islamists in Mozambique stepped up attacks. The month saw heightened political rivalry in Tunisia, and election-related violence in Zimbabwe and Papua New Guinea. High-level engagement between North Korea and the U.S. paved the way for a diplomatic process, and Macedonia and Greece reached an agreement on their name dispute. Opportunities to advance peace opened up in Africa with Ethiopia and Eritrea taking tentative steps to address their border dispute, and South Sudan’s warring leaders signing an initial framework agreement.

 

International Crisis Group: https://www.crisisgroup.org/crisiswatch

 

********************************************

 

CPIN: Albania: People trafficking

Basis of claim

1.1.1 Fear of persecution or serious harm by traffickers or other non-state actors because the person is a (potential) female victim of trafficking ((P)VoT) for sexual exploitation.

 

1.2 Points to note

1.2.1 Only trained specialists in the UK’s designated competent authorities can decide whether or not there are reasonable grounds to accept the person as a victim of trafficking for the purpose of the Council of Europe Convention on

 

Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. However, both Home Office decision makers and the court are able to take factual matters into account when making their findings in an asylum claim. If it has not already been done, decision makers dealing with the asylum claim must make an appropriate referral to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). The case will then be routed to a ‘competent authority’ (see Victims of human trafficking: competent authority guidance).

 

1.2.2 The conclusive grounds decision will be included in any outstanding asylum decision made after that decision as a finding of fact on whether the person was a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery or not, unless information comes to light at a later date that would alter the finding on human trafficking or modern slavery.

 

Published on Refworld, 03/07/2018, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5b3b34557.html

 

********************************************

 

Court of Appeal Refuses to Reverse Deportation to Pursue In-Country Appeal

 

In the recent case of R (on the application of QR (Pakistan)) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1413, it was held that despite the change in the law brought about by the Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of Kiarie and Byndloss) v SSHD [2017] UKSC 42, the court did not consider it appropriate or proportionate to order the return of a deported applicant to pursue his in-country right of appeal. His appeal against the refusal to proceed with the judicial review was allowed, but the court refused his application for interim relief which would have enabled him to return to the UK to pursue an in-country appeal.

 

In the landmark 2017 case of Kiarie & Byndloss it was held that the policy ‘deport first, appeal later’ might be unlawful if the relevant safeguards concerning proportionality and justification of the measure taken were not taken into account. In that case it was held that the public interest in removing a foreign criminal prior to his appeal being heard had to be balanced against the public interest of ensuring that the appeal remained effective for the purpose of protecting his rights under Art. 8 ECHR. There are a number of matters which have to be taken into account before it can be established whether an appeal remains effective if it is forced to be conducted from abroad. These include the availability of legal advice and the arrangements for communicating instructions potential difficulties preventing the appellant from giving live evidence and problems associated with obtaining expert or other professional evidence from abroad. The burden is on the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) to show that a fair balance has been struck between the rights of the person subject to deportation and the interests of the community.

 

Posted by: Gherson Immigration, https://is.gd/kqpKTx

********************************************

 

Pakistani Man Refused Residence In UK Over ‘Sham Marriage’ Wins Appeal

 

A Pakistani man married to a Polish citizen whose application for residence in the United Kingdom was refused on the basis that the marriage was a “sham” has successfully appealed to have his case reconsidered.

The Inner House of the Court of Session upheld the appellant’s argument that the First-tier Tribunal applied the “wrong onus of proof” by proceeding on the basis that it was for him to prove that the marriage was not a sham, rather than on the respondent to show that it was.

 

Opinion of the Court  Delivered By Lord Menzies

 

In The Cause  by  Usman Asim Against  SSHD   https://is.gd/1yoQwm 

 

 

********************************************

 

Ireland: Government Unveils New Regime for Asylum Seekers to Access Labour Market

The Irish Government has set out the details of a new regime for asylum seekers to access the labour market, over a year after the absolute prohibition on employment was ruled unconstitutional. A temporary regime, criticised by immigration practitioners for being too restrictive, was put in place after the Supreme Court struck down section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 in February. Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan said the new regime represented the entry into force of the EU (recast) Receptions Conditions Directive. Asylum seekers will have access to the labour market nine months from the date when their protection application was lodged, if they have yet to receive a first instance recommendation from the International Protection Office, and if they have “cooperated with the process”.

The Government has set out the details of a new regime for asylum seekers to access the labour market, over a year after the absolute prohibition on employment was ruled unconstitutional. A temporary regime, criticised by immigration practitioners for being too restrictive, was put in place after the Supreme Court struck down section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 in February. Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan said the new regime represented the entry into force of the EU (recast) Receptions Conditions Directive. Asylum seekers will have access to the labour market nine months from the date when their protection application was lodged, if they have yet to receive a first instance recommendation from the International Protection Office, and if they have “cooperated with the process”.

Read more: Irish Legal News, https://is.gd/Iqqa01

********************************************

 

Unsubscribe: Compliance with New Data Protection Laws, now in force: ‘No-Deportations’ does not keep any personal details of any kind of anyone, who has subscribed to ‘No-Deportations’. Just the subscribed Email address and ‘No-Deportations’, has no way of identifying to whom the Email address belongs. If you no longer wish to have your Email address on ‘No-Deportations’ mailing list, just reply to this message, with ‘Un-Subscribe’ in the subject line.

 

 no-deportations@no-deportations.org.uk

 

********************************************