Aliyu & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- JUDGE A GRUBB
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves two Nigerian sisters who overstayed their UK visas and sought discretionary leave based on their Article 8 ECHR rights. The Secretary of State’s refusal was quashed due to inadequate consideration of their individual circumstances and failure to apply Immigration Rules correctly.
Judgment
Judge A Grubb :
Introduction
The first claimant (“C1”) and second claimant (“C2”) are citizens of Nigeria who were born respectively on 23 September 1992 and 6 October 1993. They are sisters and are now aged 22 and 21 years old respectively.
The claimants entered the United Kingdom on 20 January 2004 with visit visas and leave valid until 15 July 2004. Thereafter, the claimants overstayed.
The purpose of the visit was purportedly to see their grandmother in the UK where she lives and is a British citizen. However, it would appear that in truth they came to join their maternal aunt, a British citizen in the UK, with the agreement of the father, after their mother died in Nigeria in December 2003. They have lived with their aunt, her 3 children and their grandmother since arriving in the UK. It is also said, although not specified, that they have other family members in the UK. The claimants have attended school. It would appear that both claimants have obtained GSCEs and A levels and both have been offered places at the University of Portsmouth to study pharmacy and psychology respectively. It is not clear from the evidence whether either claimant has actually taken up the offer of a place.
On 22 June 2012, the claimants submitted separate FLR(O) applications for discretionary leave on the basis of their private and family life in the UK.
On 7 February 2013, the Secretary of State refused C1 leave to remain. On 28 March 2013, the Secretary of State refused C2 leave to remain.
On 1 March 2013 and 15 April 2013, the claimants’ legal representatives sent pre-action protocol letters to the Secretary of State in respect of C1 and C2 respectively in which it was argued that the Secretary of State’s decisions failed properly to consider the claimants’ rights to remain under Article 8 of the ECHR and requesting the Secretary of State to make an appealable removal decision against each of the claimants.
On 7 May 2013, the claimants issued these proceedings contending that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing properly to consider their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR and in failing to issue appealable immigration decisions.
On 17 October 2013, permission was granted by Lang J.
The Respondent’s Decisions
The separate decision letters in respect of each claimant are brief.
1. C1: 7 February 2013
The basis of the Secretary of State’s refusal in relation to C1 was, in summary, as follows. First, the Secretary of State conclude