R Tan v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Swift |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1081 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5196/2011 |
| Date | 06 February 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1081 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Swift
CO/5196/2011
Ms R Akther (instructed by Lisa's Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms J Lean (instructed by TSOL) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse the claimant's application for asylum under what is described as the legacy scheme. The essence of the application is that the claimant had been in the UK for eight years at the time the application was considered, and length of residence is one of the factors to be considered under the provisions of paragraph 395C of the Immigration Rules. That paragraph provided (it is no longer in force) that:
"Regard will be had to all relevant factors known to the Secretary of State, including
(1) Age;
(2) Length of residence in the United Kingdom;
(3) Strength of connections with the United Kingdom;
(4) Personal history, including character, conduct and employment record;
(5) Domestic circumstances;
(6) Previous criminal record, and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted;
(7) Compassionate circumstances; and
(8) Any recommendations received on the person's behalf."
Guidance was provided by the Secretary of State to case workers as to how to apply the Immigration Rules, and the relevant guidance about paragraph 395C is contained in Chapter 53 of that guidance. Chapter 53 deals with length of residence in the UK and the approach to that. At the time the application was considered, it provided that four to six years' residence may be considered significant, but a more usual period would be a period of residence of six to eight years.
The complaint in this case is that there is no evidence that the defendant in making her decision considered the guidance as to six to eight years' residence or that she attached due weight given to the length of residence, or to the contents of Chapter 53 generally. It is said that those factors are not mentioned in the decision letter, and that it can be inferred from that, and from the decision itself, that inadequate weight was given to the fact that this claimant had been resident in the UK for eight years at the time of his application. Reliance is placed on a decision by Mr Stephen Morris QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, The Queen on the application of Fatima Forhar Mohammed v SSHD 2012 EWHC 3091. In that case, the judge decided on the facts of the case that inadequate weight had been placed on (or may have been placed on) the issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial