Ahmadi (S47 Decision: Validity; Sapkota) Afghanistan: UTIAC 14 May 2012

UTIAC (1) A removal decision under s. 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 cannot be made in respect of a person until written notice of the decision to refuse to vary that person’s leave to remain has been given to that person. The current practice of the Secretary of State to incorporate both decisions in a single notice is accordingly incompatible with the relevant legislation. As a result, the present usefulness of s. 47 is highly questionable.
(2) The fact that, as the legislation stands, the Secretary of State cannot make a removal decision at the same time as a decision refusing to vary leave, or (for practical purposes) before a person’s s. 3C leave begins, underscores the correctness of the Tribunal’s determination in Patel (consideration of Sapkota – unfairness) [2011] UKUT 484 (IAC), that what is likely to be decisive in cases of this kind is whether the Secretary of State has, in fact, addressed paragraph 395C removal factors, when taking the variation decision.
Peter Lane UTJ
[2012] UKUT 147 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromSecretary of State for The Home Department v Ahmadi CA 9-May-2013
. .
CitedMandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 April 2021; Ref: scu.457690