Baldwin, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mrs Elizabeth Baldwin, a New Zealand national, applied for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a British citizen. Her initial application was rejected due to insufficient funds for the processing fee. She refiled her application, which was again rejected for lack of required income evidence, with a right of appeal denied. She commenced judicial review challenging the refusal based on the validity of her initial application and the Secretary of State's discretion on removal decisions. The court held that the application was invalid and that there were no exceptional reasons to mandate a removal decision, leading to her judicial review failing.
J U D G M E N T
Mr Justice Hickinbottom :
The claimant, Mrs Elizabeth Baldwin formerly McIntyre, is a New Zealand national of British ancestry. She was born in New Zealand in 1966, and is now aged 48. She arrived in the United Kingdom in 2004 on an ancestry visa, and was granted leave to enter for 4 years. She later extended that leave to 20 February 2013.
2. In January 2011, she married John Baldwin, a British citizen; and they have since lived together in Torquay. He is a chartered building surveyor, who is the sole shareholder of company, JB Baldwin & Associates, through which he works.
3. In 2013, the Claimant would have been entitled to have applied for an extension of leave on the basis of her ancestry. However, she did not. Following telephone discussions with the UK Border Agency (“UKBA”), on 10 February 2013 she completed a Form FLR(M), for leave to remain as the spouse of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom. As part of that form she completed details of her Visa card for payment of the required fee, namely £561. She sent off the form, which was received by UKBA on behalf of the Secretary of State on 13 February. UKBA’s records show that payment was requested from that card the following day, 14 February; and was declined.
4. In her first statement dated July 2013 and submitted with her application for urgent expedition of this claim, the Claimant said:
“I found this incredible as I completed the payments page with my visa card and had sufficient funds to cover the application throughout the period.”
5. However, in her second statement dated 18 October 2013, she said that, having checked her bank statement, there were insufficient funds in the account in the period 11 to 15 February; but then funds were replenished and would have been sufficient. I now have copies of the bank statements for the relevant period which confirm that position. There were insufficient funds in that short period because of various unremarkable small transactions on the account, which took the Claimant over her overdraft limit of £500. In the circumstances, although Miss Ward did not accept that it was clear beyond doubt, she did concede that on the balance of probabilities the reason for the declining of the request was inadequate funds. I consider that certainly to be the case. Indeed, it seems clear to me beyond any sensible doubt that the reason for the declining of the payment request was that the account did not have sufficient funds in it