Welcome to the January 2018 edition of the Free Movement immigration update podcast. This month I start with a follow-up to the Immigration Rules changes covered last month and discuss the commencement of the immigration bail provisions of the Immigration Act 2016. I go on to look at the application process for “settled status”, the legal situation on appeal rights against refusals of visit visas, return to the UK for those subjected to out-of-country appeals and discuss several CJEU cases including two on Dublin III processes. I round off with some domestic cases including on trafficking damages, costs and the Points Based System.

The material is all drawn from the January 2018 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:

Major changes

Big changes to continuous residence rule for ILR applicants

New immigration bail and detention powers in force from 15 January

How to apply for “settled status” and “temporary status”: a guessing game

Appeal rights

Court of Appeal stomps on human rights appeals for visitors

Court of Appeal gets it badly wrong on out-of-country appeals

EU asylum

No psychological tests on gay asylum seekers, Court of Justice rules

Court of Justice clarifies Dublin III transfer procedure

Unaccompanied children and Dublin III: the latest instalment

Other cases

Internal relocation may not be “unduly harsh” on criminals