Kabashi, R (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MAURA MCGOWAN QC
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a Kosovan national's challenge to the SSHD's decisions regarding his asylum and leave to remain status. The issues revolve around the claimant's right of appeal, the application of exceptional grounds, and the consistency of the SSHD's approach. The court found merit in the claimant's argument for an in-country right of appeal but dismissed the remaining grounds. Key legal principles include the SSHD’s discretion in exceptional grounds, the need for a consistent approach in similar cases, and the non-applicability of outdated immigration rules.
Judgment
Ms Maura McGowan :
This is one of a very large number of “legacy cases” in which there has been a challenge by a claimant to a decision made by the SSHD on a purported fresh claim. A number of points of challenge arising in similar cases were dealt with by Mr. Justice Ouseley in the recent case of Jaku and others v SSHD That judgment was handed down on 11 March 2014. This claim was issued on 1 March 2012. Permission was granted on a renewed oral hearing on 6 November 2012. The arguments raised by the claim, although important, are relatively straightforward and can be dealt with concisely. [2014] EWHC 605 (Admin) .
The Background
The claimant in this case is a Kosovan national. He did not attend court and the SSHD had not heard from him since 15 May 2014.
He originally claimed asylum on 16 August 2002, he was a minor at that date.
That claim was refused and on 25 September 2002 he was granted exceptional leave to remain until 24 December 2003.
On 27 May 2004 he was refused leave to remain and that decision notice was served on him.
There was silence until 24 February 2010 when he asked to be considered for a grant of leave. His new address was acknowledged in March 2010.
The case was placed with the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) on 23 February 2011. The CRD was the unit in charge of the “legacy” of unresolved asylum cases.
The claimant’s new solicitors repeated his request for a grant of leave on 27 June 2011.
The case was transferred, with many others, from the CRD to a new unit, the Case Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU) on 26 September 2011.
A series of pre-action protocol letters was sent, the final one on 25 November 2011, alleging that the SSHD had dealt with the claimant’s case unlawfully.
This claim was issued on 1 March 2012. Permission was refused on 23 July 2012. The application was renewed orally and Mr. Justice Irwin granted permission to apply for judicial review on 6 November 2012.
On 25 October 2013 a decision letter, dated 23 October 2013, was served on the claimant. The SSHD refused to accept that there was a fresh claim on Art 8 or any other grounds. It also included a decision to remove.
There followed a series of occasions upon which the claimant failed to report as requested.
On 28 April 2014 the claimant made further submissions in person.
The claimant continued to fail to meet the requirements to report.
On 6 June 2014 the SSHD wrote to the claimant refusing to accept that the further submissions amoun