R Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
JudgeD Gill
Judgment Date01 October 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] EWHC 4130 (Admin)
Date01 October 2013
Docket NumberCO/2292/2013

[2013] EWHC 4130 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Before:

D Gill

(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

CO/2292/2013

Between:
The Queen on the Application of Singh
Claimant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendant

Miss D Qureshi (instructed by Bukhari Chambers) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

Miss M Glass (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant

1

THE DEPUTY JUDGE: The Claimant is a national of India who seeks permission to challenge a decision of the Defendant of 29 November 2012 to refuse his application for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of his marriage on 24 March 2012 to a British national; a decision that was made with no right of appeal because at the time of the application the Claimant had no leave to remain, his leave as a student having expired on 18 August 2010.

2

In the decision letter, the Defendant noted that a letter from the Claimant's representative confirmed that the Claimant's marriage had broken down and that he was no longer living with his wife. The Defendant then went on to state that the family life that the Claimant claimed to enjoy with relatives in the United Kingdom did not constitute family life as set out in Appendix FM of the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended) (the Immigration Rules). The Defendant then went on to consider the Claimant's private life claim but only within the context of the Article 8-specific rules set out at paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules.

3

I will deal with each of the grounds relied upon on behalf of the Claimant as I summarise them. I do so not necessarily in the order in which the grounds have been advanced.

4

The first point is the point that was made by Miss Qureshi almost at the end of her submissions. Miss Qureshi submitted that, as the Claimant's application was made before 8 July 2012, when the new Article-specific Immigration Rules came into effect, the Claimant's Article 8 case should have been considered in line with the jurisprudence and case law. However, she accepted that there were no transitional provisions and therefore that the judgment of the House of Lords in Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25 applies. Therefore, the challenge on the ground that the decision was unlawful for failure to apply paragraph 395C cannot succeed.

5

Another point raised in the renewal grounds is that the decision is unlawful because the Defendant failed to consider the guidance in the European case of Maslov v Austria (1638/03) (2009) INLR 47 ECHR. However, Miss Qureshi also accepted that Maslov was not applicable. So that ground cannot succeed.

6

This leaves three grounds.

7

First, it is said that the Claimant has established family life in the United Kingdom and that the Defendant simply has not considered that evidence. I asked Miss Qureshi to take me to the evidence that was before the Defendant. Miss Qureshi referred me to the letter from the Claimant's representatives to the Defendant dated 16 November 2012 at C25. She drew my attention to the second paragraph under the heading Case Law/Article 8 at C27 where it is stated as follows:

"In the present case our client has been residing in the UK for in excess of six and a half years, which is a considerable and significant length of time. During this time our client has maintained close family ties with his family, especially his mother, father and siblings. They have been providing him with financial and emotional support, which has resulted in our client not being a burden on society."

8

In my judgment, this goes nowhere near showing that the Defendant's view that this does not amount to family life was arguably unlawful. Miss Qureshi...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT