R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Mohammed Bashir
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 1984 |
| Date | 16 October 1984 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Webster J
M Hussain for the applicant.
C Symons for the respondent.
Cases referred to in the judgment:
Pravinbhai Rantanji Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Unreported) TH/43141/99 (1766) of 30 May 1980, IAT.
Maganlal Bhikhubhai Chauhan v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Unreported) TH/31206/78 (1449) of 15 February 1979, IAT.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Jarnail Singh Sandal [1981] Imm AR 95, DC.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Subhash [197980] Imm AR 97, IAT.
Re Singh (Unreported, DC/253/81) of 30 June 1982.
Practise and procedure Exercise of discretion by Secretary of State Meaning of the words exceptional circumstances Marriage Application for permanent stay following marriage refused Adjudicator allowed appeal finding (1) marriage not one of convenience and (2) applicant's inability to consummate marriage which led to its breakdown constituted an exceptional circumstance Tribunal allowed Secretary of State's appeal as they did not consider the incompatability between the spouses so exceptional a circumstance as to justify the grant of the application for permanent stay HC 241 para 24A.
The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived on 2 October 1979 with entry clearance for marriage and was admitted for three months. Following his marriage on 3 November 1979 he applied to remain permanently. The Secretary of State refused the application firstly because he believed the marriage to be one of convenience, and secondly because there was reason to believe that one of the parties had no intention of living with the other as spouse. An adjudicator allowed the applicant's appeal: finding that the marriage was not one of convenience, and that it was the wife who no longer had any intention of living with her husband. The appeal to the Tribunal from the adjudicator's decision, and the present application for judicial review of the Tribunal's reversal of the adjudicator's decision, turned exclusively on the Secretary of State's exercise of his discretion under the second part of paragraph 24A of HC 241.
Held: (i) It seemed possible to state that the words exceptional circumstances if used somewhat idiomatically meant circumstances which very rarely occurred: whereas on the other hand it was possible to state that, as a matter of strict language anything was exceptional which did not follow a rule or norm.
(ii) The Tribunal had expressed their conclusions wholly consistently with the literal, as distinct from the idiomatic, meaning and accordingly it could not be concluded that they had misdirected themselves.
(iii) It could not be said that the Tribunal's decision was one which no reasonable Tribunal could have reached.
Obiter: There might be some danger of tribunals and adjudicators misdirecting themselves if they continued to use the word exceptional. It would be better simply to ask themselves whether there were circumstances which justified departure from the normal rule.
Webster J: This is an application by Mohammad Bashir for judicial review of a decision of an Immigration Appeals Tribunal, made on 21 April 1983, by which the tribunal allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a decision of an adjudicator.
The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. On 3 September 1979 he was issued with an entry clearance certificate to come to the United Kingdom for the purpose of marriage to Hamida Begum. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 2 October 1979 when he was given leave to enter for three months. On 3 November 1979 he went through Muslim and civil marriage ceremonies with Hamida Begum. On 6 November 1979 he applied to the Secretary of State for extension of his stay so as to allow him to remain permanently in the United Kingdom.
His application was refused on 24 March 1980. Paragraph 24A of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules for Control after Entry (HC 241 of 1977) prohibits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Mohammed Bashir
...exercise of their discretion and so affected the result. In those circumstances I agree that their decision cannot stand. * See [1984] Imm AR 165. ...