The court was asked whether the decisions of the Secretary of State to give limited (discretionary) leave to remain as opposed to indefinite leave to remain are unlawful because they were given in breach of the Secretary of State’s duty under Section 55 of the 2009 Act.
Held: Floyd LJ discussed the TS case, saying: ‘That case also shows, as Mr Malik recognized, that it was sufficient if the substance of the duty was discharged and that the decision maker did not have to refer explicitly to the statute or the guidance. As to the latter point, see also AJ India v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1191 . . ‘ and ‘There can, in my judgment, be no doubt that the Secretary of State is entitled in principle to adopt a staged approach to settlement. Even where children are the applicants, if does not follow that the Secretary of State is bound, on a first application, to grant ILR. The consideration outlined in the evidence of Mr Gallagher amount to factors which are worthy of consideration, and deserve to be placed in the balance after the best interests and welfare of the children have been considered. It follows that an applicant who wishes to persuade the Secretary of State to grant her leave for a period longer than that provided for by the staged settlement policy has to do more than point to the fact that she is a child.’
Laws, Floyd, Vos LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1334, [2014] WLR(D) 435
Bailii, WLRD
Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – TS, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Oct-2010
The claimant had sought asylum as a child, declaring that he had not applied for asylum elsewhere. His fingerprints were matched to an applicant in Belgium.
Held: Wyn Williams J construed section 55 and the statutory guidance referred to in . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ali, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 9-Jan-2015
The claimant complained that the respondent when granting her a time limited leave to remain only, had by making her immigration status incompatible with that of her five children failed to comply with her obligations under the 2009 Act. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537614