Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 282 (Jun)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Ouseley J

Representation Jackie Bond (instructed by Figueiredo & Bailey) for the claimant.
  Katherine Olley (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 20 June 2008

Catchwords

Immigration - Leave to remain - Refusal of leave - Basis of challenging refusal - Claimant from Angola entitled to exceptional leave to remain upon arrival to United Kingdom - Asylum claims refused at first instance, on appeal and on reconsideration - Secretary of State refusing to grant discretionary leave to remain - Claimant seeking judicial review on three grounds - Permission granted on renewed application - Claimant relying on different basis for bringing proceedings at hearing - Whether court should entertain judicial review application - Whether Secretary of State's decision lawful.

The Case

In the instant case, the Court dismissed a judicial review application, which had been brought by the claimant on the grounds that the Secretary of State's decision not to grant him discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom was either perverse, based on a misunderstanding of authority, or incorrect on the basis of the approach to be taken to art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given the claimant's acceptance at the hearing that he had brought proceedings in view of an intention to go to Strasbourg, where, if he was to succeed, he recognised that he would have to demonstrate that he had exhausted all his domestic remedies. If the Secretary of State's decision was to be regarded as unlawful, that would not only set the statutory appeal process in relation to immigration decisions at nought, the instant Court would effectively be rendered an appellate authority, which was something that it was not.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.