Zhang, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE SYCAMORE
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant, a Chinese national, unsuccessfully sought asylum in the UK and overstayed. He challenged the UK's refusal to resolve his immigration status. Initial and appeal permissions were granted, focusing on the Home Office's decision letter from 2013 which deemed him without basis to stay. Upon judicial review, it was found that the Home Office erred, particularly regarding the claimant's cooperation and reporting history; thus, requiring a fresh and accurate assessment.
Judgment
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SYCAMORE :
These proceedings were issued as long ago as 27 September 2012. The claimant is a national of China who, it is said, arrived in the United Kingdom in November 2000. He claimed asylum. That application was refused. His appeal against that refusal was heard on 12 August 2002 and refused on 20 August 2002. The claimant became appeals right exhausted on 2 October 2002. Since that time he has continued to live in the United Kingdom and has not made any further representations as to his immigration status.
In 2004 the claimant was cautioned for shop lifting and for carrying a sharply pointed blade. Between 2004 and 2010 a number of unsuccessful attempts were made to obtain emergency travel documentation for him to return to China.
These proceedings, by which the claimant challenged the defendant’s failure to make a decision on his case in accordance with the “Legacy Policy”, were issued on 27 September 2012. Permission was refused on the papers on 23 October 2012 by Robin Purchas QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge). On a renewed application on 25 February 2013 John Howell QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) granted permission in these terms:
“1 Permission to amend Claimant’s grounds within 14 days to impugn the decision (if any) taken on 18.03.11 on the ground of misdirection in law and on the ground that the decision was otherwise unreasonable.
2 Permission be granted to claimant to proceed with a claim for judicial review ….”
There was a difference of opinion between counsel before me as to whether permission extended also to a letter from the defendant of 20 September 2012. Although there was correspondence from the claimant’s solicitors to the court requesting an amendment to the court order to include reference to that letter in addition to the decision (if any) of 18 March 2011 no such amendment was ever made. I have formed the view that the order as sealed represents the extent of the permission granted on 25 February 2012. In any event, as I will explain, it is clear that the internal note of 18 March 2011, for that is what it was, is no more than that. It reads:
“I have reviewed this and it is considered that we will not be able to remove this case before the end of 31st March 2011. Moreover, the case does not qualify for a grant of leave under paragraph 395 of the Immigration Rules”.
It cannot on any view be said to be a decision. Similarly, the letter of 20 September 2012, in respect of which p