Artwork for Free Movement
Government

Free Movement

Free Movement

Updates and comment on UK immigration law

  • 142 episodes
  • Updated July 2

Episodes142

  • Dec 15, 2017 · 26 min

    Immigration update podcast, episode 46

    Welcome to the October 2017 edition of the Free Movement immigration update podcast. This month we look at a load of cases from Strasbourg, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and of course the Upper Tribunal. These cases range from the sublime, including private religious worship, trafficking and torture, to the ridiculous. I end by taking a look at a couple of examples of media coverage of Home Office decisions and the harsh rules the coverage highlights. The material is all drawn from the October 2017 blog posts on Free Movement. If you would like to claim CPD points for reading the material and listening to this podcast, sign up here as a Free Movement Member. There are now over 40 CPD hours of training materials available to members. You can find all the available courses here. If you listen to podcasts on your mobile phone, you can subscribe for free via iTunes here, Stitcher here or point your podcast player to the podcast feed for Free Movement. Using a mobile device and subscribing has the advantage that each new podcast can be automatically downloaded for listening to on the go. To access previous Free Movement immigration update podcasts click here. The main content of the downloadable 25 minute audio podcast follows the (non chronological) order of content below: Cases Strasbourg approves deportation of Nigerian drug dealer Anti-trafficking victories in Supreme Court: Reyes and Benkharbouche Changes to National Referral Mechanism for trafficking victims Court of Appeal: private religious belief does not risk persecution High Court defeat for Home Office over torture policy Tier 2 sponsor licence revocation challenge fails in High Court Curtailment letters can be sent to an overseas address How not to serve a curtailment letter Upper Tribunal tackles “genuine entrepreneur” test Self-sufficiency, health insurance and welfare benefits: the case of AMS Explainers Immigration and nationality law following surrog...

  • Dec 13, 2017 · 25 min

    Immigration update podcast, episode 45

    Welcome to the September 2017 edition of the Free Movement immigration update podcast. This month covers several cases, one from the Court of Appeal and the others from the Upper Tribunal. I’m also going to give a mention to some of our new explainers on different aspects of immigration law and take a look at the case of Samim Bigzad, whose case highlighted the law on contempt of court for a government minister. The material is all drawn from the September 2017 blog posts on Free Movement. If you would like to claim CPD points for reading the material and listening to this podcast, sign up here as a Free Movement member. There are now over 40 CPD hours of training materials available to members. You can find all the available courses here. If you listen to podcasts on your mobile phone, you can subscribe for free via iTunes here, Stitcher here or point your podcast player to the podcast feed for Free Movement. Using a mobile device and subscribing has the advantage that each new podcast can be automatically downloaded for listening to on the go. To access previous Free Movement immigration update podcasts click here. The main content of the downloadable 25 minute audio podcast follows the (non chronological) order of content below: Cases Human rights, long residence and the integration test in the Court of Appeal Is “residence” the same as “presence” in the Immigration Rules? Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 continue to apply for appeals says tribunal Deception, causation and deprivation of British citizenship Further guidance from Upper Tribunal on withdrawal of immigration appeals Tribunal: Home Office must prove present risk to deport EU citizens Tribunal can (but won’t) hold Home Office in contempt for ignoring consent orders Explainers Explainer: Can the Home Secretary really be guilty of contempt of court for breach of a court order? Fee waiver policy: who qualifies and what does the Home Office policy say? Serge Aurier and visas for footballers after Brexit...