Summary:
This case was a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to treat the Claimant’s representations as a fresh claim. The Claimant had been age-disputed but had been found to be a minor by the Immigration Tribunal, who refused him asylum. The Secretary of State failed to apply her policy to grant discretionary leave to remain (DLR) to minors. The Applicant was ultimately removed to Afghanistan as a young adult and pursued his claim from there – he unsuccessfully sought an Order for his return. The Court held that the refusal to grant DLR was within the range of reasonable responses open to the Secretary of State and was thus not irrational. However when considering Article 8, the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to take due account of the fact that the failure to grant the Applicant DLR is a disadvantage of itself requiring consideration in the proportionality balancing exercise. The Secretary of State had also erred by making a misstatement of fact regarding the age dispute which allowed the Tribunal and High Court to proceed on a mistaken factual basis in permitting the applicant’s removal from the UK. Two years later, this did not require to be corrected by an Order for his return because it was not a foregone conclusion that he would succeed in establishing his fresh claim – the Secretary of State’s decision was quashed and must be remade.
- Document Date
- 2014-11-18
- Issue Number
- 14.12.30432