R Ashraf v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Lewis |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4769 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/10857/2013 |
| Date | 19 December 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 4769 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Lewis
CO/10857/2013
Mr C Mannan (instructed by Direct Access) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Z Malik (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is an oral application for permission to apply for Judicial Review. The claim is said to be in relation to a decision of 27 July 2013. As will become clear in my judgment, this was not a reviewable decision.
The background is that the Claimant applied for a post-study work visa. In order to obtain that he had to obtain 13 points. His application included a claim for points for a particular qualification. The application was made on 4 April 2012. The indications are that the qualification was awarded on 6 July 2012 and I will return to that matter shortly.
There was an appeal against the refusal to the First Tier Tribunal. That appeal was dismissed. An application for permission to appeal was refused by both the First Tier Tribunal and by the Upper Tier Tribunal.
On 27 July an agent for the Secretary of State wrote to the Claimant, reminding him that he had no right to be in the United Kingdom, that he should therefore leave or seek to regularise his position and that if he did not leave his case would be monitored and he would in due course be removed.
The Claimant seeks to challenge that decision. First, as is clear from the terms of the letter of 27 July, it is not a reviewable decision. It is not altering the position or changing the legal or practical rights of the Claimant in any sense. It is reminding him of the consequences of the fact that his application for a visa has been refused.
Secondly, in my judgment the real challenge is to the decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal. Any challenge to that decision would be well out of time.
Furthermore, the criteria in CART and in CPR 54.7A have to be met, that is there would have to be some point of principle, some point of practice or some other compelling reason to justify the grant of permission. None has been identified here.
Thirdly, even if I were to consider the decision of 27 July 2013 as a reviewable decision, in my judgment there is no arguable basis that...
To continue reading
Request your trial