Immigration analysis: Adam Pipe, barrister at No 8 Chambers, reviews the key cases from January 2024 to July 2024 for Immigration advisers, and explains why they are of interest. The review covers revocation of sponsor licences, legal limbo and Article 8 ECHR, judges and fairness, EUSS and the Withdrawal Agreement, EEA and non-EEA deportation, electronic monitoring, private life and entry clearance and citizenship rights and revocation.

Immigration analysis: Adam Pipe, barrister at No 8 Chambers, reviews the key cases from January 2025 to June 2025 for immigration advisers, and explains why they are of interest. The review covers case law on ‘global assessments’ in revocation of sponsor licences, employing family members in the Skilled Worker route, Skilled Workers and voluntary work, deprivation of citizenship, Article 8 ECHR, EEA and EU Settlement Scheme matters, and Upper Tribal reported decisions over the period.

Immigration analysis: Adam Pipe, barrister at No 8 Chambers, reviews the key cases from July 2024 to December 2024 for immigration advisers, and explains why they are of interest. The review covers best interests of the child, EU law and dependency, how Article 8 ECHR is treated in entry clearance appeals, leave obtained by deception and long residence, developments on EEA deportation law after Brexit, the content of civil penalty notices, mandatory grounds in sponsor licence revocations, and time limits for appeal where a notice is defective. It also includes the Ramfel case on the need for digital proof of s 3C leave, from June 2024.

Immigration analysis: Adam Pipe, barrister at No 8 Chambers, reviews the key cases from July 2025 to December 2025 for immigration advisers, and explains why they are of interest. The review covers Article 8 matters, curtailment and cancellation, sponsor licence revocation, use of Artificial Intelligence, deprivation of citizenship, the pre-2012 Discretionary Leave policy and criminality, new matters and EUSS appeals, and fettering of discretion in Windrush Scheme applications.

This Practice Note examines the powers of the Home Office to detain individuals when exercising immigration control. It includes an overview of the Home Office’s policy on detention as well as a discussion of who is liable for detention and who is considered unsuitable for detention. It also identifies the places in which a person may be detained for immigration reasons. The Practice Note is primarily intended to provide a summary of the key principles involved. Immigration detention The Home Office, including Border Force, has the power to detain individuals when exercising immigration control. However, each time the power to detain arises, the Home Office also has the power not to detain and to allow the individual to be in the UK on a temporary basis, eg on immigration bail. Bail may be granted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) or, when someone is detained, by a judge. Immigration detention is a form of administrative (non-criminal) detention, which is usually used when an immigration officer investigates a case or to effect removal.

1 The decision is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act (section 84(1)(c) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002). 1.1 For the purposes of article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the decision of the entry clearance officer (ECO) is not in accordance with the law as it is not in accordance with the requirements of entry clearance as a partner in Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. 1.1.1 The decision fails to take into account relevant evidence regarding the genuine nature of the relationship, in particular the extensive evidence of telephone contact, the photographs and the letters of support from friends and family that were

Matters pertaining to persons subject to immigration control who are under the age of 18.

Matters pertaining to persons subject to immigration control who are studying or intending to study in the United Kingdom.

Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) provides a legislative framework for judicial review. However, it is not a codified list of powers, and caselaw may provide or illuminate practical application of inherent powers (eg when the High Court will grant bail). The procedures for judicial review in the Administrative Court (a specialist ‘list’ within the Queens Bench Division of the High Court are laid down in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). CPR 54 and CPR PD 54A cover judicial review specifically. From 14 July 2022, new remedial powers are contained in SCA 1981, s 29A, inserted by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. The discretionary power allows the court to award suspended and prospective-only quashing orders. Discussion of the powers coincided with potentially far-reaching judicial review reforms. The context for the use of this power, the frequency of its deployment and its wider effects are uncertain. In National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited, the House of Lords considered the use

In principle the lawfulness of any administrative decision relating to an individual’s immigration status or nationality may be susceptible to challenge on established public law grounds via judicial review where no alternative remedy exists. Judicial review is the process whereby the judges of the Administrative Court (which sits within the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice), and since 1 November 2013, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), exercise jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts or omissions of public bodies and a supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts and tribunals. In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, Lord Diplock observed that: ‘Judicial review…provides the means by which judicial control of administrative action is exercised.’ Judicial review is particularly important in immigration cases, because most decisions no longer attract a right of appeal, leaving the oversight of judicial review as the only legal remedy. The process was warmly received in O’Reilly v Mackman where Lord

Immigration offences are matters that are dealt with under the criminal law. They are distinct from civil penalties which, in the context of immigration, are monetary penalties levied by the Home Office when enforcing laws or regulations. This Practice Note covers some of the main categories of immigration offence. For information on offences relating to illegal working, see Practice Notes: Illegal working—civil and criminal sanctions and Illegal working: dealing with a criminal allegation. Sources of law relevant to immigration offences There are many immigration-related offences on the statute books. Most of them are contained in the main Immigration Acts, including the following: • Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971) • Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 (AIA 1996) • Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (IAA 1999) • Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (NIAA 2002) • Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (AI(TCE)A 2004) • Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006) • UK Borders Act 2007 (UKBA 2007) • Immigration Act 2014 (IA 2014) • Immigration

Criminal offences relating to breaches of immigration controls by persons subject to immigration control and by persons assisting them in so doing.