Immigration Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing them indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the original, as opposed to the reconsidered, decision had been the relevant decision. That decision had been one which the Secretary of State had been entitled to reach, as the relevant time for judging whether para 134 of the Immigration Rules had been complied with had been the time of the decision, not the time of the original making of the application.
Immigration Leave for indefinite stay. The first claimant Thai national and her four children sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to grant her leave to remain (LTR) for 30 months on the condition that she should have no recourse to public funds (NRPF). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, having regard to of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, it was not unlawful to grant the first claimant LTR, rather than indefinite leave to remain and it was not unlawful, in principle and in the circumstances, to impose the NRPF condition.
Immigration Detention. The claimant challenged the legality of his immigration detention and sought damages for unlawful detention. The defendant Secretary of State conceded liability for a portion of the detention. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that, whilst part of his imprisonment had been unlawful, the claimant was entitled to only nominal damages set at 5 as, if the power to detain had been lawfully exercised, the claimant would nonetheless have been detained.
Immigration Leave to enter. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to grant a European Economic Area family permit and entry clearance to enable the second claimant Kenyan national to enter and reside in the United Kingdom with her husband, the first claimant, and their three children. The Administrative Court stayed those proceedings pending determination of the claimants' statutory appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union's determination on the court's reference in R (on the application of McCarthy and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (), concerning whether the UK's approach to residence cards issued by other member states was lawful.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to allow the respondent's appeal against the rejection of his application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to reinstate his indefinite leave to remain (ILR) which had been revoked following the issue of a deportation order pursuant to of the Immigration Act 1971. The Supreme Court decided that on the correct construction of s5(2) of that Act, the respondent remained liable to deportation, even though it could not at present be carried out: although his position in the United Kingdom had to be regularised, that did not entail recognition of ILR.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant asylum seeker sought judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State. The claimant challenged a fresh decision on the basis that it should have granted him indefinite leave to remain, rather than limited leave. The Administrative Court held that the decision had been entirely lawful and would be upheld.
Immigration Leave to remain. The appellant Sri Lankan national had applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of continuous lawful residence for a period of ten years. The respondent Secretary of State refused the application. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed his appeal on the ground that removal would be a disproportionate interference with his private life. The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT had erred in having given insufficient reasons for its decision. It re-made the decision and allowed the Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Upper Tribunal had been entitled to set aside the decision of the FTT, but that it had erred in its calculation of continuous residence which it had taken into account in assessing the appellant's right to private life. The matter was remitted.
Immigration Appeal. The claimant Russian national issued judicial review proceedings contending that, on the proper interpretation of of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, he could leave the United Kingdom to return to Chechnya without abandoning his appeal against the cancellation of his indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, in the circumstances, the claimant positively withdrawn or abandoned his appeal. Accordingly, the judicial review application was academic and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing an academic claim.
Nationality British nationality. The claimant's application for naturalisation had been refused on the basis that he lacked good character due to his deception. He sought judicial review.The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendant Secretary of State had erred in law in her consideration of deception and good character when considering the naturalisation application. Further, the Secretary of State had not breached the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Ecuadorian national applied for leave to remain. In March 2011, the defendant Secretary of State rejected that application without reference to the claimant's children. The claimant applied for judicial review and in July, the Secretary of State agreed by consent to review the March 2011 decision. In the same month, the Secretary of State's policy changed with the effect that those in the claimant's position would receive discretionary leave to remain (DLR). In November, the Secretary of State granted the claimant three years' DLR. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to grant him DLR rather than indefinite leave to remain (ILR). That claim was brought late due to the claimant's financial position. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court accepted the claimant's submission that his case had fallen within the types of scenarios in which the Secretary of State had contemplated that the granting of ILR after the policy change in July 2011 would have been appropriate. Further,whilst the delay in bringing the claim had been undue delay, it had not been particularly reprehensible and in the circumstances of the case and declarative relief would be granted.