Malaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Ross Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2017 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2017] EWCA Civ J1102-3 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C2/2016/2661 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 02 November 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Civ J1102-3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION
Courtroom No. 74
Room E311
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Sir Ross Cranston
Case No: C2/2016/2661
NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Applicant
NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Respondent
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Eshun given on 17 May 2016. She refused permission to apply for judicial review following an oral hearing.
The background in brief is that the applicant came here in 2007 with entry clearance as a student nurse. She was granted leave to remain in 2008. The following year, in September 2009, she gave birth to a daughter. The daughter was the result of a relationship with a person who was from Malawi.
She then submitted an application two months later in November 2009 for leave to remain as a Tier 4 student, and that was granted in June of the following year. She then in late 2011 submitted an application for leave to remain as a dependent spouse, but that was refused. Then on 20 November 2013 she was served with an IS151A, which is a notice to a person liable to be removed as an overstayer. She appealed to the First-tier Tribunal the following month, December 2013, and her appeal was dismissed in April of the following year. That meant that in mid-2014 she was appeal rights exhausted.
She submitted an application in September 2014 for leave to remain on Article 8 family life and private life grounds outside the Immigration Rules. That application was refused on 10 December 2014. The detailed refusal letter mentions inter alia that she had separated from her partner and that the daughter did not live with her, although she on her account played an active role in the daughter's upbringing.
Then on 27 February 2015, she submitted a human rights application for leave to remain under Articles 3 and 8. That application was refused on 9 September 2015 pursuant to paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, in other words, on the basis that the further submissions she had made did not constitute a fresh claim.
In the meanwhile, in June 2015 she had been served with the standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial