![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> MO (reg 17(4) EEA Regs) Iraq [2008] UKAIT 00061 (18 June 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2008/00061.html Cite as: [2008] UKAIT 00061, [2008] UKAIT 61 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
MO
(reg 17(4) EEA Regs) Iraq [2008] UKAIT 00061
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
Date of hearing: 9 May 2008
Date Determination notified: 18 June 2008
Before
Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Immigration Judge C E S Andrew
Between
![]() |
APPELLANT |
and |
|
Secretary of State for the Home Department | RESPONDENT |
For the Appellant: Mr. R. de Mello, instructed by Coventry Law Centre
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Mills, Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The decision by the Tribunal in FD (Algeria) [2007] UKAIT 00049 that it has power to review the exercise of discretion exercised within the EEA Regulations remains correct, despite the reversal of that determination on other grounds by the Court of Appeal.
2. When exercising discretion under reg 17(4) it will be necessary for the decision maker to show that all relevant circumstances were taken into account in relation to that decision. A reference to the relevant circumstances in relation only to a decision under Art 8 is unlikely to be sufficient.
"Following the grounds for permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal and investigation into the facts of the case it has emerged that in error, and contrary to the practice of the Secretary of State, all of the personal circumstances of the appellant were not considered and his application was refused that he was an overstayer when he applied for a residence card".
Mr. de Mello told us that he understood that the Secretary of State is formulating a policy on applications under reg 17(4) which will be able to be published.
C M G OCKELTON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Date: