R Feroz v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Robinson |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4210 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/7080/2012 |
| Date | 10 December 2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2013] EWHC 4210 (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/7080/2012
Mr D Jones (instructed by Wilsons Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr J Jolliffe (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As Approved)
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review by the claimant, a national of Pakistan, whose date of birth is 8 October 1983 and who is therefore 29.
In 2004 the claimant entered the UK on a student visa and he has remained here pursuant to extensions to his visas until the dispute arose. On 12 December 2008 he applied for leave to remain under the Tier 1 points-based system (Post-study work) and his application was refused. On 31 March 2009 an appeal against that refusal was dismissed. There was reconsideration on 8 July 2009, which ordered the appeal decision to stand. On 16 December 2010, the Court of Appeal gave the claimant leave to appeal against the decision and Hooper LJ indicated that the reasons were that the appeal has a real prospect of success.
The basis of the appeal was that the claimant's application for leave to remain complied with every requirement of the Immigration Rules and guidance issued thereunder but for one matter: he was awarded no points at all on one head by virtue of his failure to produce bank statements in the required form. The bank statements which had been produced had been downloaded from the internet, whereas the relevant guidance said that electronic bank statements had (amongst other things) to be authenticated by the bank via a supporting letter or official stamp on the statements.
The claimant argued that that requirement was, in effect, a criteria which had to be met in order for the application for leave to remain to succeed, and was therefore a rule which had to be in a document laid before Parliament, as the Immigration Rules are required to be, by virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719. However, as a result of family ill-health, the claimant went home to Pakistan for a time and abandoned his appeal.
Following the decision in Pankina, the Secretary of State adopted a policy of reconsidering cases which had been refused by virtue of failure to meet maintenance criteria, an amended version of that policy being adopted on 22 November 2010. The policy indicated that decisions would be reviewed, but on the basis only of the material which had been submitted in support of the original application.
On 24 February 2011, the claimant requested a review of the decision relating to him, but on 1 April 2011 the claimant was informed that he did not qualify for a review. The email specifically refers to the lack of bank statements which had been suitably authenticated by the bank.
On 7 September 2011, the claimant's solicitors sent a pre-action protocol letter. However, there was no reply to that letter, nor were any proceedings issued. On 22 March 2012 a further pre-action protocol letter was sent which elicited a response dated 5 April 2012. Yet another pre-action protocol letter was written on 9 May, which elicited a response on 28 May 2012. This application was issued on 5 July 2012.
Permission was refused on the papers by James Dingemans QC on the grounds that the claimant had a right of appeal against the appeal decision in his case, but for reasons which were understandable he declined to pursue it, and that this application for permission to apply for judicial review is simply an attempt to resuscitate his appeal.
Before me, Mr Jones, for the claimant, has argued that the application is not a challenge to the previous appeal decision but seeks to review the Secretary of State's subsequent decision-making; and only in the latest letter (dated 28 May 2012) has the Secretary of State actually given a reason for not following the decision in Pankina, namely that by requiring authenticated bank statements pursuant to an outside source, the Secretary of State is adopting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Medical Council v Roufail
...EWHC 4210 (Admin)" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> [2013] EWHC 4210 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester Greater Manchester M60 9DJ His Honour Judge Gore QC (Si......