R Singh v Secretary of State for Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Timothy Straker |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 909 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4897/2012 |
| Date | 31 January 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 909 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Timothy Straker, QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
CO/4897/2012
Mr Z Malik (instructed by Mayfair Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss S Blackmore (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
THE DEPUTY JUDGE: This is a renewed application for permission to seek judicial review in circumstances when Pelling HHJ on 12 September 2012 refused permission.
The situation is as follows. The Claimant, who was born in 1986 and is a national of India, came to this country, the United Kingdom, on 29 December 2009 with a visa issued under the Tier 4 of the points-based system. His visa was valid until 17 October 2011. It can be noted at this stage that upon his visa becoming invalid; in other words, after the expiry of 17 October 2011; his continued presence in the United Kingdom was unlawful and susceptible to summary removal.
The position was this; on 25 October 2011, the Claimant submitted an application for further leave to remain under Tier 4. That application came to be refused on 7 December 2011 because the college the Claimant intended to study at; namely, the London School of Business Management; had been removed from the Tier 4 sponsor register.
It followed that the Claimant's Confirmation of Acceptance of Studies was not valid. Additionally, the Claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his relationship with his financial sponsor, so the applicant failed the maintenance requirement as well.
The application for judicial review was, in fact, made on 10 May 2012 and received on 14 May 2012. No particular point has been canvassed in front of me by way of promptitude, although it can be noted, of course, that there is an obligation on applicants in seeking permission to move for judicial review to move promptly under the relevant Civil Procedure Rule.
Mr Malik on behalf of the Claimant has effectively taken three points. Two of them are, at the very least, overlapping points. I will deal with them in the order in which he took them.
The first point refers to certain policy guidance. I leave over any question as to whether this policy guidance was the guidance in place at the time or no because it seems to me this policy guidance and the passage relied upon is not applicable in the case of the Claimant.
The point here made is that if someone's permission to stay has expired whilst that person was awaiting a decision on an application, there would be a delayed refusal of the application for 60 days so as to allow the applicant to obtain a new CAS from a different sponsor and vary the application or leave the United Kingdom.
That plainly is dealing with a circumstance of that person whose permission to stay expires whilst he was waiting a decision on his application. It is not dealing with and cannot, however one looks at those words, be made to deal with the person whose permission to stay has, in fact, expired, but who then subsequently, as in this case, makes an application. Accordingly, that first point does not in my mind achieve any particular result as far as Mr Malik or his client is concerned.
The second and third points I take together because they really come under the rubric of fairness. Plainly, it is right that the Secretary of State should deal with people fairly. Indeed, in this regard, considerable weight has been placed by Mr Malik upon a decision made in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) before Blake J, the President, and Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial