24 January 2015 The 1MCB Immigration and Asylum Update (IAU) provides regular short summaries about notable or informative immigration and asylum cases to assist practitioners quickly assess new reported cases. The updates will not provide a lengthy analysis but a practical summary to ensure ease of reference.
Further procedural guidance given by the President of the IAC to judges regarding the grant or refusal of permission to appeal. In particular, where grounds for permission argue that the JFtT should have reached a different conclusion, permission should be refused on the basis that no error of law has been identified.
C asserted that had D applied the correct policy in 2002, he would have been entitled to ELR under the policy relevant to Afghan asylum seekers at that time. This case considers the ‘corrective relief’ principles and case law following Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department Imm AR 97 and Rashid v Secretary of State for Home Department  INLR 550 [§§25-55]. The Court focuses on: whether the initial decision taken was unlawful or illegal; whether a reasonable SSHD would have taken decisions after 2002 without reference to the past failure to grant ELR; and delay. JR dismissed.
A had been convicted of raping a 15 year old girl and resisted his extradition to Italy on the grounds that he would face Article 3 ill treatment if returned to an Italian prison. The Court found that the situation had moved on since Torreggiani and others v Italy (2009) App. No 43517/09 and Badre v Court of Florence, Italy  EWHC 614. Although prison conditions in Italy remain problematic and many more reforms may be necessary, there were not substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that A would face prison conditions in breach of Article 3.
A challenged his extradition on the basis of mental health problems (including the risk of suicide), fear of potential problems with interpreters in Spain, and difficulties resulting from being separated from his wife. The court applied the legal principles in Wolkowicz and found that, on the evidence, there was no basis for supposing that the authorities would not discharge all their obligations, including the taking of appropriate steps to protect A from the risk of suicide. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal against the proposed extradition of A to Croatia to face prosecution for a war crime. A alleged that the true purpose of the extradition was only for the suspected offence to be investigated. A also claimed that the lapse of time, as well as his physical and mental condition, would make the extradition oppressive. The court found that the extreme seriousness of the alleged offence added to the importance of Croatia being able to conduct A’s trial. Appeal dismissed.
A preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in the context of a bilateral agreement between the Greek and Romanian Governments, concluded in 1996, concerning final settlement of the compensation in respect of the social security contributions made by Greek political refugees repatriated from Romania.