Each claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to refuse them leave to remain. They said that when deciding whether to grant leave, the defendant should have afforded the claimants the benefit of the Secretary of State’s seven years children concession policy.
Held: The claims succeeded. The respondent should retake the decisions applying the policy.
Judges:
Bidder QC J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2894 (Admin)
Links:
Cited by:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Rahman CA 15-Jul-2011
Several claimants challenged the withdrawal by the respondent of the seven year child concession policy, under which families who did not have leave to be in this country, but with children who had been in this country for 7 years were, save in . .
At first instance – Munir and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimants were subject to deportation, but had settled here and begun a family. An earlier concession would have allowed him to stay, but it was withdrawn. The court was now asked whether statements by the Secretary of State of her policy as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425952
