Immigration and Asylum Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Immigration and Asylum Law - Case Study ExampleNationality may also be acquired later in life with naturalization. Under UK law the legal sense of nationality attributed to the meaning of citizenship.The residents of a country generally possess the right of abode in the territory of the country whose legal documents they hold. This, however, is pendant upon the constitution of the named land, and there are exceptions, particularly among more economically stable nations.Asylum law is considered to be the part of international humanitarian law rather than immigration law. The two basic principles of refugee law are, first off a refugee should not be returned to persecution and secondly that the state must provide an asylum applicant with a procedure to make their claim. Domestic legislation has an important role in asylum law twain in terms of making the international conventions part of our domestic law, and in terms of setting forth national procedures and enforcement mechanisms . The asylum law can now be found in international conventions and agreements, much(prenominal) as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.Now shall go through the facts, scopes, major issues, and the relevancy of the conjoined cases of Huang v. secretaire of nominate for the Home department and Kashmiri v. ... Now shall go through the facts, scopes, major issues, and the relevancy of the conjoined cases of Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and Kashmiri v. Secretary of State for the Home Department with the application of nationality, immigration and asylum Law. 2 Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and Kashmiri v. Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentThis together heard appeals raised a common skepticism on the decision-making role or function of appellate immigration authorities while deciding appeals, on Convention grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or persist, und er section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum mask 1999 and Part III of Schedule 4 to that Act.Facts Mrs Huang is a Chinese citizen born on 29 environ 1942. Her husband,from whom she is separated, daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons are British citizens living in this country. Mr Kashmiri is an Iranian citizen born on 4 July 1981. His parents and two siblings came to this country in 2000 and were in due course granted indefinite leave to remain as refugees, but Mr Kashmiris claim to asylum has been refused.Mrs Huang appears before the House as a respondent in an appeal by the Secretary of State and Mr Kashmiri as an appellant in an appeal against the Secretary of State. Neither of the applicants qualifies for the grant of leave to remain in this country under the Immigration Rules and administrative directions shortly promulgated. Both claim that the refusal of leave to remain is unlawful because incompatible with their Convention right to respect for