Appeal from refusal of leave to remain – application for judicial review – further reasons given – status of additional letters.
Held: The two certifications were based upon a legal misdirection.
However: ‘There may in practice be relatively few cases where removal for an interim period pending an appeal would be in breach of Convention rights in the absence of a risk of serious irreversible harm, but it is a possibility which must be focused on as a necessary part of the decision-making process.’ The misdirection in Mr Kiarie’s case had not been material because, even had she applied the overarching criterion, the Home Secretary would still have certified his claim; and that the misdirection in the first certification of Mr Byndloss’ claim had been cured by a correct direction in the second certification of it.
Judges:
Black , Beatson , Underhill LJJ
Citations:
[2016] EWCA Civ 1307, [2016] WLR(D) 690, [2017] 1 WLR 2339, [2017] INLR 283, [2017] Imm AR 930
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.572734