Immigration Law Review - UK and USA

Mehul Choksi's extradition from Belgium to India is governed primarily by Belgian national law, supplemented by the bilateral extradition treaty between Belgium and India. The process must also comply with broader European human rights obligations, which influenced the Court of Cassation's decision on December 18, 2025, to reject Choksi's appeal on grounds including fair trial rights, abduction claims, and risks of inhuman treatment. I have set out below a breakdown of the key Belgian laws and their relation to EU frameworks. Key Belgian Laws and Statutes Loi sur les extraditions - Extradition Act of 15 March 1874: This is the foundational Belgian statute governing extradition to non-EU countries like India. It outlines the procedures for passive extradition (surrender from Belgium), including requirements for a formal request, judicial examination, and final approval by the Minister of Justice. The Extradition Act of 15 March 1874 has been amended over time (e.g., in...

January 7, 2018 : Mehul Choksi fled India, initially traveling to the United States before settling in Antigua and Barbuda, amid allegations of involvement in a massive fraud at Punjab National Bank (PNB). January 15, 2018 : Choksi took the oath of citizenship in Antigua and Barbuda under their Citizenship by Investment program, having applied in November 2017. February 2018 : The Enforcement Directorate (ED) attached 41 properties worth about Rs 1,210 crore belonging to Choksi and his firms under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with the PNB fraud. March 2018 : A special PMLA court issued non-bailable arrest warrants against Choksi, his nephew Nirav Modi, and others for criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, cheating, corruption, and money laundering related to the Rs 12,636 crore PNB scam. June 17, 2018 : Choksi's lawyer informed the Bombay High Court that he had left India f...

Sanjay Bhandari, an Indian resident and arms dealer/defence consultant, is accused of wilful tax evasion under Section 51 of the (Indian) Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015 (“BMA”)  and related money laundering under Section 3 of the (Indian) Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (“PMLA”). The allegations involve failing to disclose foreign assets (including properties in Dubai and London, shares in UAE and Panama companies, and foreign bank accounts) worth approximately INR 6.66 billion (£64.8 million) in tax returns for assessment years 2012–2016, despite being liable for global taxation. Searches in April 2016 uncovered evidence, leading to admissions by Bhandari. The money laundering charge is predicated on the tax evasion as the "scheduled offence." India issued two extradition requests (April 2020 for PMLA; June 2021 for BMA), certified by the UK. The extradition hearing before District Judge Snow in 2022 found a prima...

On September 11, 2018, a consortium of 13 Indian banks (led by the State Bank of India) filed a original bankruptcy petition against Vijay Mallya in the Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC), part of the Business and Property Courts within the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (High Court (Chancery Division) in London). On December 10, 2018, Westminster Magistrates' Court ruled the Mallya can be extradited to India on fraud and laundering charges, provided UK Home Secretary approved the order within two months. On February 4, 2019, UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid signed off on the extradition order. Mallya was given 14 days to appeal. In July 2019, Mallya was granted permission to appeal the extradition to London's High Court, citing prison conditions and human rights concerns. On April 20, 2020, London's High Court dismissed Mallya's appeal against the 2018 extradition order. In May 2020, Mallya appealed to the UK Supreme Court. This appe...

  The proceedings stemmed from a bankruptcy petition filed on 11 September 2018 by a consortium of 13 Indian banks (led by the State Bank of India, including Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India, and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt Ltd) in the Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC), part of the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division). The petition was based on a 2017 judgment from India's Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Bangalore, enforcing Vijay Mallya's personal guarantees for unpaid loans to the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, totaling approximately £1.05 billion (principal plus compound interest at 11.5% per annum with yearly rests from 25 June 2013). An earlier 2020 ruling ([2020] EWHC 96 (Ch)) had found the original petition defective due to estoppel treating the banks as secured creditors u...

  Vijay Mallya’s extradition hearings at Westminster Magistrates' Court ran from December 2017 to September 2018, involving extensive evidence such as emails, affidavits, financial records, and expert testimony. On 10 December 2018, Senior District Judge (SDJ) Emma Arbuthnot ruled there was a prima facie case and sent the case to the Secretary of State for extradition approval. Mallya appealed to the High Court (Divisional Court), with permission granted only on one ground in 2019. The appeal was heard on 11-13 February 2020. Key UK Statutory Provisions Invoked or Applied Extradition Act 2003, section 84(1) : Central ground of appeal; requires evidence sufficient for a prima facie case (i.e., enough to require an answer if it were a summary trial in the UK).  Extradition Act 2003, section 84(2), (3), and (4) : Govern admissibility of hearsay statements (applied to Indian police statements under s.161 CrPC).  Extradition Act 2003, secti...

A consortium of 13 Indian banks (led by the State Bank of India, the "Claimants") extended loans totaling approximately ₹6,203 crore (about £750 million at the time) to Kingfisher Airlines Limited (KFAL) under a Master Debt Recast Agreement dated December 21, 2010. These loans were secured by a personal guarantee from Dr. Vijay Mallya (the First Defendant) and a corporate guarantee from United Breweries (Holdings) Limited (UBHL). KFAL defaulted amid financial distress post-2008, leading to the suspension of its operating license in 2012. The Claimants initiated recovery proceedings in India's DRT, Bangalore, in June 2013. On January 19, 2017, the DRT issued a judgment ordering Mallya and others to pay ₹6,203 crore plus 11.5% annual interest (escalating to over ₹9,853 crore by November 2017), enforceable via a Recovery Certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993. Mallya, residing in the UK since 1992 on indefinite leave to remain, challenged the perso...

  Vijay Mallya is the former chairman and CEO of Kingfisher Airlines (KFA), a subsidiary of the United Breweries Group (UB Group). KFA, launched in 2005, expanded rapidly but faced severe financial difficulties by 2008-2009 due to high fuel costs, a depreciating rupee, and operational losses. In early 2009, KFA secured loans totaling INR 1,250 crores from a consortium of five banks (State Bank of India, Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, United Bank of India, and United Commercial Bank). Facing a further shortfall of INR 750 crores, KFA approached the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) in September 2009 for additional financing. IDBI sanctioned and disbursed three short-term loans to KFA: INR 150 crores on October 7, 2009; INR 200 crores on November 4, 2009; and INR 750 crores on November 27, 2009. These loans were approved despite KFA's weak financial position, including accumulated losses exceeding INR 2,155 crores, a negative net worth, a low credit rating of BB (indicati...

The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union representing over 700 immigration judges employed by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), challenged a 2020 EOIR policy memorandum that prohibits immigration judges from engaging in public speaking, writing, or media appearances on immigration policy, procedures, or related matters in their personal capacities. The policy, issued under the Biden administration but retained and enforced by the incoming Trump administration, requires pre-approval for any such activities and bars discussion of "controversial" topics, citing concerns over impartiality and agency neutrality. NAIJ argued the policy constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment and is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment, depriving the public of expert insights amid surging immigration caseloads and policy debates. In July 2020, NAIJ filed suit in the U.S. Distri...

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2012 to flee persecution by the MS-13 gang, which had targeted his family. He settled in Maryland, where he lived openly for nearly seven years, working in construction, marrying a U.S. citizen, and raising three children, including a son with disabilities. In 2019, following a minor encounter with local police, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him and initiated removal proceedings. Abrego Garcia conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). On October 10, 2019, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum and CAT relief but granted statutory withholding of removal, finding a clear probability that Abrego Garcia would face persecution in El Salvador based on his credible testimony and evidence of gang threats. The IJ's decision, however, contain...

The claimant, Mr Al-Hasawi, a Kuwaiti national, arrived in the UK in 1995 as a student and was granted ILR in 2002 after qualifying under the long residence route (Immigration Rules, para 276B). He established a family life, marrying a British citizen in 2005 and fathering two UK-born children. In 2018, following a conviction for possession of false documents (a minor offence under s 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010, for which he received a suspended sentence), the Secretary of State initiated deportation under s 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, deeming him a "foreign criminal" despite the sentence length. Mr Al-Hasawi's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) succeeded in 2019, finding the public interest in deportation outweighed by Article 8 family life under s 117B NIAA 2002 (e.g., children's best interests and rehabilitation evidence). However, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the Secretary of State's cross-appeal in 2020, substituting a deportation order....

The Claimant, Prestige Social Care Services Ltd, is a specialist care provider incorporated in 2012, operating in the East Midlands and serving high-needs patients. It held a sponsorship licence under the Home Office's "Workers and Temporary Workers: Guidance for Sponsors" (Sponsor Guidance), which allowed it to assign Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) to migrant workers for sponsored visas. Between August 2021 and the events in question, the Claimant assigned 111 CoS, prompting scrutiny from the Home Office's Immigration Compliance team. On 26 March 2024, the Home Office suspended the Claimant's licence, citing concerns that the high volume of CoS relative to the company's business profile suggested some vacancies might be non-genuine or that the Claimant was potentially supplying workers to third parties, in breach of sponsor duties. The Claimant responded with extensive documentation, including a detailed letter from its solicitors on 16 July 2024, contes...