GROUND 2: THE EU LAW ISSUE
48. This ground is summarised in [15] (ii) above. The starting point is that the impugned decisions of the Secretary of State did not identify, or address, any EU law issue. Mr Jafferji recognised that these appeals have no “cross-border element”. He submitted, however, that while the Court of Appeal in
- Introduction
- Abdul Aziz
- Statutory Framework
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions
- content
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions Analysed
- Permission to Appeal
- GROUND 1: THE SECTION 55 ISSUE
- Khan
- Mr Khan,
- Mr Rauf,
- Mr Aziz,
- The FtT’s Approach
- context
- legal
- only
- naturalisation
- JO and Others (Section 55 Duty) Nigeria
- MK (Section 55 – Tribunal Options) Sierra Leone
- Kaur (Section 55/Public Interest Interface)
- JO Nigeria
- twofold
- MK Sierra Leone
- possibility
- Kaur
- SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- in the circumstances of this case
- in this decision-making context
- right
- duty
- Deliallisi
- Delliallisi
- nature
- GROUND 2: THE EU LAW ISSUE
- G1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Pham
- AB (Nigeria v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- their fathers
- future
- R (G1)
- GROUND 3: THE POLICY ISSUE
- Paragraph 2.5:
- Paragraph 2.6:
- Paragraph 2.7:
- Paragraphs 2.20 – 2.21:
- might
- serious
- serious organized crime
- policy
- R (Alconbury Developments) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
- What is crucial is that the policy must not fetter the exercise of the discretion.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ozminnos
- In Re McFarland
- GROUND 4: THE ARTICLE 8 ECHR ISSUE.
- GROUND 5: THE PART 5A NIAA 2002 ISSUE
- A Footnote
- OMNIBUS CONCLUSION
- Dated