Mohamed, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- PHILIP MOTT QC
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the Claimant challenged the UK Border Agency's decision to grant him limited leave to remain instead of indefinite leave, based on the legacy program. Despite initial indications of approval, his claim for indefinite leave was refused. The court dismissed the judicial review application and rejected claims of legitimate expectation and procedural unfairness.
Judgment
Philip Mott QC :
On 10 January 2012 the Claimant was sent a letter from the UK Border Agency telling him that, subject to final security checks, he would be granted leave to remain in the UK in line with current Immigration Rules. A similar letter was sent on the same day to his MP. Despite this, on 7 September 2012 he was refused leave to remain. Not surprisingly, on 20 December 2012 he was given permission to apply for judicial review of that decision. The Defendant sensibly agreed to withdraw the decision and issue a new one. That new decision came on 12 June 2013 and granted the Claimant limited leave to remain for 30 months until 12 December 2015.
Under the terms of a consent order the Claimant was allowed to proceed with his claim and amend his grounds for judicial review. He did so, though a little later than allowed for in the consent order. He challenged the fresh decision on the basis that it should have granted him indefinite leave to remain, rather than limited leave.
The basis of the new challenge is an interpretation of what is known as the “legacy programme” which is inconsistent with that in R (Geraldo) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 2763 (Admin) and a number of cases since which have followed it. Ms Braganza, for the Claimant, frankly accepted that her arguments could only succeed if Geraldo was wrongly decided.
Application to adjourn
On 17 March 2014 the Claimant’s solicitors applied for the hearing to be adjourned on the basis that an application for permission to appeal the decision in Geraldo is listed for oral argument in the Court of Appeal on 1 April 2014. I refused that application on paper, but it was renewed before me at the outset of this hearing.
In relation to Geraldo permission to appeal has been refused by the judge at first instance, and also on paper by a single judge of the Court of Appeal. The hearing on 1 April is therefore a renewed application to the full court. Even if it is successful, the grant of permission gives no clue as to the final outcome and the full hearing is likely to be many months away.
My attention was drawn to the case of Kazi v SSHD in which permission to appeal has been granted by McCombe LJ. But that is an appeal against a refusal on paper with no right to renew to an oral hearing in this court. The reasons make clear that the single judge would have liked to have an oral hearing with attendance by the Respondent, but could not order that. He states specifically that he is far from satisfie