R Arinze v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Blackett |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 239 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/2186/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 12 January 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 239 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
His Honour Judge Blackett
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
CO/2186/2014
Amanda Weston (instructed by Islington Law Centre) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Jennifer Thelan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (No attendance by counsel at read-out judgment)
The claimant came to the UK with her parents as a 9-year-old child. She was subsequently abandoned and has grown up in this country. From the age of 16 she lived in a variety of different places. She was raped in 2011. She applied for indefinite leave to remain on 19 October 2012, when she was 21 years old. That application was rejected as being invalid because no fee was paid. On 30 July 2013, she again applied for indefinite leave to remain on a discretionary basis. She now has two young children. On 23 January 2014 the defendant granted her limited leave to remain for an initial period of 30 months. She now seeks judicial review of that decision.
I will not rehearse the arguments and the submissions advanced at the oral hearing again here. Suffice it to say that both parties made their respective cases clearly and unambiguously, and I was grateful for their assistance. Therefore, turning immediately to my decision: firstly, the Immigration Rules at D-LTRP 1.2 and Appendix FM are lawful, and the submission that they are incompatible with the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 section 55 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 3 is misconceived. Secondly, it is clear from the authorities that the defendant's policy (the staged approach to applicants seeking leave to remain) is lawful, not least because the defendant has a discretion to grant indefinite leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules: see Tigere v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2014] EWCA Civ 1216 at paragraph 83. Thirdly, the defendant considered the claimant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial