R Bujar Nemishi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson,Her Honour Judge Robinson |
| Judgment Date | 14 August 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3827 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/12045/2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 14 August 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 3827 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
CO/12045/2012
Mr C Jacobs (instructed by Marsh and Partners) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr J Jolliffe (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review by the claimant, who is a national of Macedonia born on 24 June 1977 and is therefore 36. He seeks to challenge a decision of the Secretary of State, dated 14 August 2012, refusing him leave to remain.
The chronology is as follows: on 17 August 2001, the claimant claimed asylum in the UK. That was refused, but an appeal by the claimant was allowed. However, the Secretary of State then appealed and that appeal was allowed on 21 August 2003. Therefore, at that point the claimant had no leave to remain in this country at all. He failed to make any contact with the authorities until 26 September 2008 when the solicitors, on his behalf, wrote to the UKBA.
On 6 October 2008, he made further submissions, which focused on his asylum issues and Article 3. There is a bare reference to Article 8 and private and family life being established in the UK, but no details whatsoever were provided. Those submissions were finally refused on 14 August 2012. Thereafter, the claimant repeatedly failed to report. These proceedings were commenced on 19 November 2012, permission was refused by HHJ Shaun Spencer QC on 23 May 2013 and the application for permission was then renewed.
Counsel for the claimant, Christopher Jacobs, takes two points. He submits, first, that if the claimant's further submissions had been dealt with in good time as part of the 'legacy' cases they would have resulted in the grant of indefinite leave to remain in accordance with the Secretary of State's policy applying at the time, as outlined by the court in the case of Hakemi and Others v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1967 (Admin) and he had a legitimate expectation to that effect. Even ignoring the period of time during which the claimant was not in contact with the authorities, he could point to a total period of 6 years between 2001 and 2003 and 2008 and 2012 when he was actively pursuing his claim to remain in this country.
The second ground is that, in the alternative, the Secretary of State's conclusion that the claimant's further representations did not amount to a fresh...
To continue reading
Request your trial