R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Mohammed Manzur Yakub
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 October 1986 |
| Date | 03 October 1986 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Simon Brown J
K S Nathan for the applicant
D Pannick for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury CorporationELRUNK [1948] 1 KB 223: [1947] 2 All ER 680
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte ThakrarELRUNK [1974] 1 QB 684: 2 All ER 261
R v Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay ex parte AminELRUNK [1983] 2 AC 818: [1983] 2 All ER 864
Taj Mohd Swati v Secretary of State f or the Home Department [1986] Imm AR 88
Special voucher — refusal — whether the unpublished criteria by which applications were judged were unfair — whether there was a legitimate expectation that an application would be granted when the application of an elder brother had been granted. Immigration Act 1971 s. 13: HC 169 para. 45.
The applicant for judicial review was a resident of Pakistan. He was a British Overseas citizen. He had left Kenya with his family in 1963. In 1977 his elder brother was granted a special voucher. In 1981 his own application was refused. In 1984 he arrived in the United Kingdom without entry clearance and sought admission as a visitor. He was refused admission. Originally that refusal was also to be challenged by way of judicial review, but that application was abandoned following ex parte Swati.
In pursuing an application for review of the refusal of a special voucher, counsel submitted that in the light of the grant of a voucher to the applicant's brother, the refusal was perverse. His position was no different from that of his brother. In the circumstances he had a legitimate expectation that it would be granted. It was unfair that the applicant had been discriminated against on the basis of unpublished criteria applied to the assessment of applications.
Held:
1. Following ex parte Amin, while there was no right of appeal under the Immigration Act 1971 against a refusal of a special voucher, the refusal could be challenged on judicial review on Wednesbury principles.
2. There was nothing objectionable, in accordance with those principles, in there being criteria established to assist administrative officers in the difficult task of weighing one application against another.
3. The applicant's legitimate expectation extended no further than the expectation that his application would be considered: it did not extend to a legitimate expectation that it would be granted.
4. There was no rule in domestic or international law that would require the applicant to be admitted to the United Kingdom.
Simon Brown J: There is before the Court a motion for judicial review of a refusal by the Secretary of State to grant a special voucher to the applicant to settle in this country, that refusal being on 1 June 1981.
The applicant is a British Overseas citizen. He was born in Kenya on 8 June 1960 and is accordingly now aged 26. His father used to work for the British Government on the Kenyan railways, but in 1963 he left Kenya with his family, including...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr (Eco: Post-Decision Evidence)
... ... For the Respondent: Ms L Saunders, Home Office Presenting Officer ... DR (ECO: ... (a) which was available to the Secretary of State at the time when the decision appealed ... accepted by Glidewell J in R v IAT ex parte Kwok on Tong [1981] Imm AR 214 and referred to in ... ...
-
Mohammed Manzur Yakub v Chief Immigration officer, Heathrow
...v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1986] Imm AR 88. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Yakub (QBD) [1986] Imm AR 491. Appeals the proper conduct of immigration appeals the obligations of counsel. Special Voucher refusal whether a legitimate expectation arose ......