As you can see, I’ve made some presentational changes to the blog over the weekend. Votes were overwhelmingly in favour of de-orangification! I’m looking for a cleaner and more professional presentation, but to retain the functionality of the old version.

I’ve decided to use the Grid Focus theme by Derek Punsalan, with some light adjustments to the header (but not much else) in order to include an image. The migrating geese (or possibly ducks) seem like an appropriate image for the blog.

The columns have moved, obviously, and I quite like the new arrangement. You will see if you click on a post that the column closest to the main post varies depending on whether the screen is on a specific post or the general home page, which has allowed me to tailor the contents slightly according to what you are looking at. There are quite a few things I cannot change, though, such as the links on header bar under the image and the slightly clumsy navigation solution it automatically offers.

There is also a new ratings system that WordPress have introduced and is enabled on this theme. I’ve allowed ratings of posts but may drop this again if (a) no-one uses it or (b) people use it to diss my blog too much!

I’m quite happy with the re-design so far, and would be very interested to hear feedback.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of claimants in two immigration cases today.

In R (on the application of A) v London Borough of Croydon their Lordships have ruled that it is for the courts to decide age assessment issues. The courts should not simply defer to local authorities, as was being held by the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal. While there is certainly a resources imperative at local authorities to assess children as adults and lawyers have been concerned this is happening in practice, this outcome certainly doesn’t mean no more disputed age assessments. It does re-open the door to independent age assessments, depending on the outcome of the appeal against Collins J’s decision that pediatrician age assessments are a load of hocus pocus.

In BA Nigeria v SSHD their Lordships have upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision in BA (Nigeria) [2009] EWCA Civ 119, which means that there is an in-country appeal if a person advances a human rights claim, even if UKBA do not believe the claim constitutes a fresh claim as defined by Immigration Rule 353. There are, however, other ways for UKBA to act to limit appeal rights, primarily through a clearly unfounded certificate under s.94 2002 Act, which is what they have started to do in recent months.

More analysis to follow, in a bit of a rush at the moment.

Naval (sic) gazing

I’ve made a few slight changes to the blog I thought I ought to explain. The UKBA press department has gone mad in recent months and produces so much garbage it drowns out the other items in the news feed. I’ve therefore separated it out into its own box. I might also filter out the various UKBA enforcement announcements bollocks (it’s all very Two Minutes) but not tonight. I’ve promoted the much-clicked-upon BAILII case law feed to the top of the left hand panel but limited it to five items, which is usually enough to see anything new.

On the right hand side, the HJT Training advert is back with news of the upcoming annual judicial review conference (and will continue to come and go at the top of the right hand column to promote upcoming courses or conferences), and I’ve also made explicit my links with HJT in a new Training page.

I’m getting a bit bored of the orange theme and the current blog design generally and am considering another re-vamp – which is a decent excuse for another of these gimmicky poll things:

Henry Porter speaking

I’ve been to a couple of AGMs in the last couple of weeks — Hammersmith and Fulham Community Law Centre and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association — and have learned all sorts of interesting things. Only some of which I will share!

The most prominent speakers at the first of these, HLCLC, were Sir Alec Jeffreys and Henry Porter, who posted to his own blog about the debate. Sir Alec was engaged by the indomitable Sheona York at the law centre (she is now at IAS) to prove paternity in an immigration case in 1985, the first time that DNA fingerprinting was used to establish identity. The case is an excellent example of the value of a law centre, a dedicated and imaginative lawyer and good legal aid funding.

At the ILPA AGM I learned that UK nationals are the third largest users of free movement rights in Europe (I assume meaning outside one’s home country). You’d have thought that UK nationals didn’t like free movement – but they certainly do like it one way. British complaints about EEA free movement take on a peculiarly national hypocritical dimension when seen in this context.

I also learned that under the new Lisbon rules, now in force, any judge can make a reference to the ECJ, not just the Supreme Court, and that there is some apparently Curate’s Egg like guidance from the European Commission on how member states should deal with alleged abuse of free movement rights. This document is almost impossible to find on the interweb, for some reason. I have not had a chance to go over it properly yet but it sounds like essential reading from its description by the brilliant Elspeth Guild.

Lastly, I learned that I should check the weather forecast carefully before cycling anywhere and that north London is a lot hillier than south London. I am now suffering the consequences, unfortunately.

Enough is enough. I’ve deleted the earlier Cambridge College of Learning posts and comments because I am concerned that this website was being used by various groups of alleged ex-CCL students to take money from other alleged ex-CCL students. The ‘comments’ were being used to notify meeting places and times. There is nothing wrong with getting yourselves organised but this website does not exist for that purpose.

Good luck, if there really are any genuine post graduate ex-CCL students out there.

I’ve just seen that judgment is now available on BAILII* in a recent successful challenge to UKBA’s refusal to grant permission to work to those who are entitled to it following the Court of Appeal judgment in ZO (Somalia).

More about the issue in previous posts starting here. It is a classic example of UKBA lawlessness. Incidentally, Steve Symonds of ILPA will be giving a talk on UKBA lawlessness at the ILPA AGM tomorrow, for which it is apparently not too late for members to book. I’ll be there!

* Enough of you are clicking on BAILII links to have induced the head honcho at BAILII recently to email me so say they were delighted that I made such free use of BAILII links but please acknowledge BAILII more – which I am absolutely delighted to do, BAILII is a marvellous website.

The new president of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the new Upper Tribunal has been announced: Mr Justice Nicholas Blake QC. The appointment is effective as of 15 February 2010, when the unlamented Asylum and Immigration Tribunal is merged into the rest of the tribunal system.

The choice of appointment comes as a pleasant surprise to many. Nick Blake, as many in immigration law will continue to think of him, was primarily a claimant Counsel and was based at 2 Garden Court then latterly at Matrix Chambers (see his profile here). He was tirelessly active and very well regarded both as a man and as a brilliant lawyer.

Anyone expecting liberal decisions from him should not hold their breath, though. Andrew Collins was considered a liberal before his appointment as President but immigration lawyers were disappointed by many of his decisions. However, I would hope that this will put an end to some of the more obviously reactionary trends in the modern tribunal. The third party support saga, for example, was an unfortunate and personal legacy from the late Sir Henry Hodge. It seems a fair assumption that Nick Blake would never have gone off in that wrongheaded direction.

We should be grateful that someone of Mr Justice Blake’s calibre is willing to serve in this capacity. Most High Court judges find immigration and asylum cases an annoyance and this office is hardly a fast track to judicial advancement.

My bad, as I believe some young people today sometimes say.

Many thanks to the excellent Philip Nathan of 36 Bedford Row, one of the juniors in the case, for a more authoritative explanation of the 3rd party Supreme Court case, which I reproduce from another forum with his permission:

The Supreme Court heard the linked cases of AM, VS, SA, KA and AM(2) during the  first three days of this week. After hearing from counsel for the ECOs, Monica Carrs Frisk QC, the Court indicated that they didn’t need to hear replies from the Appellants on the issues of joint sponsorship under the rules and whether the existing rules relating to spouses and dependant relatives and also children under 297, allowed for reliance on third party funds.  In light of this, it seems that they will be ruling on both issues in our favour thereby reversing both AA (Bangladesh) and AM (Ethiopia).

It seems likely also that questions may be asked as to why the SSHD seemingly ignored Collins J’s ruling in Arman Ali.  Issues relating to Article 8 and 317 (iii) remain undecided and the Court gave no indication of their position other than to seek further submissions in reply.  The case of AM(2) recently was added to the cases which were before the Court of Appeal last year, in order to consider the issue of Article 8 and Article 14 with respect to disabled sponsors.  This is where the Blogger’s [that's me!] confusion may have arisen as that hearing was was due to proceed yesterday afternoon immediately after the main issue, but the SSHD conceded Entry Clearance for that Appellant only, following the court’s indications at the end of the main hearing.  Leading counsel in the various cases were: Manjit Gill QC, Michael Fordham QC and Lord Pannick QC (+ Richard Drabble QC on the papers in SA but who was unfortunately unavailable for the hearing).  The juniors were those that appeared before the Court of Appeal last year plus Joanna Stevens for AM(2).

There was no indication as to when the Court will hand down its judgment.

Again, many thanks Philip.

News just in, more to follow tomorrow, if there’s anything to say. AM (Somalia) was heard and allowed today. I’m currently at the Hammersmith and Fulham Community Law Centre AGM so not much chance to deal with this properly right now. Word is that the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal and tribunal and third party support is once again allowed under the immigration rules for spouses and dependent relatives. The written judgment will probably not be available for several weeks or months, unfortunately.

In short, this means that support from benevolent uncles is once more permitted as a contribution to maintenance under the immigration rules. Charles Dickens would approve, I feel.

UPDATE 12/11/09: I had a chat with one of the juniors in the case. The panel was of five judges. The appellant’s leaders were Manjit Gill QC, Michael Fordham QC (I’ve noticed he doesn’t do a lot of Treasury work these days) and David Panick QC, with Monica Carss-Frisk QC for the Home Office. The hearing lasted two and a half days. At the end the panel announced that the appeal was allowed and entry clearance should be granted. Intriguingly they also indicated that they were going to hold that third party support was permissible for the three categories under the rules. It isn’t clear which three, but must include spouses and dependent relatives. Children cases may also be included in the ruling.

Suzanne McCarthy, the current Immigration Services Commissioner

The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) is currently consulting on the regulation of immigration advisers. Or, more accurately, the de-regulation of immigration advisers.

It is illegal to give immigration advice in the UK unless the adviser is a member of an exempted profession (mainly solicitors and barristers) or is registered with the OISC at one of three levels. Level 1 does not involve giving advice as such, merely pointing an immigrant in the right direction or filling in simple forms. There is a test to pass to register at Level 1: an online multiple choice test done in the security and privacy of your own home. Meaning, of course, that anyone can take the test for you or even if you do it yourself you can look up the answers at your leisure. Level 2 allows the adviser to actualy give advice. Level 3 enables the adviser to carry out advocacy in the immigration tribunal.

It is all a bit more complicated than this, in fact, but life is too short to go into it further. The scheme is certainly not a simple one, and the OISC has struggled for the last decade to get the public, community groups, advisers and immigrants to understand it all. Now, the OISC is proposing to tear it all up, confuse the hell out of everyone again, merge levels 1 and 2 and allow current level 3 advisers to undertake judicial review applications in the new unified tribunal. As far as I can see from the consultation paper, there will be virtually no bar to anyone giving full-on immigration advice other than the at-home multiple choice ‘test’ and there will be no bar to OISC advisers undertaking judicial review work other than a simple advocacy test.

Now, I was an OISC adviser for years. There’s certainly nothing wrong with OISC advisers. I’ve seen terrible, terrible work by immigration solicitors and excellent work by OISC advisers. But the idea that an OISC adviser would be adequately equipped to do JRs after an advocacy test by the OISC is ridiculous. And the idea that the OISC is basically giving up on preventing the ignorant from giving immigration advice is very dangerous. It will reverse the admittedly limited progress the OISC has made into closing down dodgy immigration agents and consultants.

If the OISC was serious about regulation they would concentrate on improving their screening and application process, their visits, enforcement action and audits and basically get on with it. This looks like a classic governmental response: failing to do the job properly despite having perfectly good powers in place, blaming the legal framework and fiddling repeatedly with the rules to move the goalposts. We see it often enough in immigration law already, thank you very much. The proposals will do nothing to prevent or close down bad advisers. Instead this will distract the OISC and the regulated advice sector for a couple of years while simultaneously making it easier to give incompetent advice.

If you are concerned about the regulation of immigration advisers and the quality of advice given to immigrants, you may wish to respond to the consultation.