The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing assistance pending decision on her removal. The authority refused assistance on the basis that she was wife of an EU national, but she was to be removed because that marriage was not genuine.
Held: An asylum seeker is not to be equated with a foreign national seeking to establish a right of residence. Having abandoned the asylum aplication, the court could not make an decision assuming she could not return to her country of origin. Strasbourg jurisprudence does not require a claimant, seeking entry for family reasons, to be permitted to enter, or to remain here on public support, pending the resolution of her disputed claim. She had in the past demonstrated the ability to support herself, and the judge’s finding that she might do so again was not irrational.
Judges:
Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Judge And Lord Justice Kay
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1150
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another Admn 4-Mar-2002
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Mar-2003
The Home Secretary appealed a ruling that his implementation of section 55 was unlawful, having been said to be incompatible with human rights law.
Held: The way in which the section had been operated, by denying consideration and all benefits . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Benefits, Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184925