R FM v Secreatary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Sullivan |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 1238 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 13 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C4/2010/1586 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 1238
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Christopher Symons QC)
Before: Lord Justice Sullivan
Case No: C4/2010/1586
Mr Mike Harris (instructed by Beemans Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Lord Justice Sullivan
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against the order dated 10 June 2010 of Mr Christopher Symons QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division, dismissing the applicant's claim for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State contained in a decision letter dated 18 November 2009, as further explained in a letter dated 5 March 2010, that her further representations did not amount to a fresh claim.
The judge set out the relevant immigration history in some detail in his judgment dated 10 June 2010 ( [2010] EWHC 1321 (Admin)). For present purposes it is sufficient to note that the applicant and her daughter, T, who was born on 29 October 1999, have both been in the United Kingdom since 3 May 2003.
The applicant's husband was in the United Kingdom on a student visa which was due to expire on 31 October 2007 and the applicant was granted leave to remain until that date. She separated from her husband in July 2006. In March 2008 she claimed asylum. That claim was rejected and an appeal dismissed. In 2009 a separate asylum claim was made on behalf of T. That was refused and an application for permission to apply for judicial review of that decision was made, but that was subsequently withdrawn in September 2009. Those applications having failed, the following month in October 2009 further submissions were made on behalf of the applicant and the decision letter dated 18 November 2009 was the Secretary of State's response to those further submissions.
By the time the matter came before the judge there was only one issue: whether the Secretary of State was reasonably entitled to conclude that there was no realistic prospect of an immigration judge deciding that there would be a disproportionate interference with the private life of the applicant and her daughter under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was no basis on which a fresh claim could possibly have succeeded on the basis of an interference with family life because the applicant and her daughter would be returned to Malawi together; nor was there any realistic prospect of a claim based on an interference with the applicant's private life alone being successful. The Article 8 claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial