Huang (Huaqin) Application for Judicial Review (Leave stage)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Colton J |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIKB 73 |
| Date | 11 July 2023 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIKB 73
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: COL12218
ICOS No: 23/011978/01
Delivered: 11/07/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HUAQIN HUANG
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
___________
Mr Tim Jebb (instructed by JMS Solicitors) for the Applicant
Mr Philip Henry (instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office) for the Proposed
Respondent
___________
COLTON J
Introduction
[1] The applicant is a Chinese national (DOB: 5/12/91) who arrived in the UK on
5 September 2009, and claimed asylum on 26 May 2016. This was done after she was
detected by the authorities in this jurisdiction. Her claim was that she was at risk of
political persecution if returned to China because of her association with the China
Xinmin Party (China New Democratic Party). She currently resides in Belfast with
her six-year-old son who was born on 12 July 2016. I have left any references to the
son’s name blank throughout this judgment.
[2] The proposed respondent rejected the applicant’s claim for asylum on
9 November 2016 and her appeal against that decision was dismissed on 6 February
2018. She became appeal rights exhausted on 29 August 2018.
[3] A series of further submissions in respect of her claim for asylum were then
lodged culminating in submissions dated 15 December 2021. These submissions
were rejected by the proposed respondent on 10 November 2022. The proposed
respondent also determined that the applicant did not enjoy a right of appeal to the
immigration tribunal in respect of the decision. This was the original decision
challenged by the applicant. However, after proceedings were lodged, the proposed
respondent issued a fresh decision dated 23 February 2023. That is the decision now
challenged. In general terms, the basis of the applicant’s submissions of
2
15 December 2021 was that her son’s Article 3 and 8 Convention rights would be at
risk if the applicant was forced to return to China with her.
[4] The applicant contends that the subsequent decision to reject these
Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. As a result of this failure the applicant
asserts that the proposed respondent also failed to properly apply paragraph 353 of
the Immigration Rules (the basis on which the proposed respondent refused to grant
the applicant’s right of appeal).
The relevant law
[5] There is no dispute as to the applicable law.
Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. These provide as follows:
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for
ensuring that—
(a) the functions mentioned in subsection (2) are
discharged having regard to the need to safeguard
and promote the welfare of children who are in the
United Kingdom, and
(b) any services provided by another person pursuant
to arrangements which are made by the Secretary
of State and relate to the discharge of a function
mentioned in subsection (2) are provided having
regard to that need.
(2) The functions referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) any function of the Secretary of State in relation to
immigration, asylum or nationality;
(b) any function conferred by or by virtue of the
Immigration Acts on an immigration officer;
(c) any general customs function of the Secretary of
State;
(d) any customs function conferred on a designated
customs official.
To continue reading
Request your trial