The judgment of Collins J in Lekstaka [2005] EWHC 745 (Admin) established that on Judicial Review of a refusal of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of permission to appeal to it that claimant’s case was arguable, but did not decide the merits of that case nor establish general propositions applicable to other cases.
As now clarified by AA (Afghanistan)[2007] EWCA Civ 12 and SB (Bangladesh) [2007] EWCA Civ 28, the loss of a right of appeal (e.g. by being denied a grant of ELR as a minor) does not amount to a particularly significant ‘disbenefit’ unless there are practical disadvantages that can be demonstrated in the individual case (e.g. being prevented from working or being denied needed assistance under the Children Act 1989).
Although the reliance placed by TK (Immigration Rules-policy-Article 8) Jamaica [2007] UKAIT 00025 on the ‘truly exceptional circumstances’ test has been shown by Huang [2007] UKHL 11 to be wrong, its guidance on ‘near-misses’ remains valid. Even when an individual’s circumstances fall squarely within the rationale of a relevant immigration rule or policy and so accord with its spirit albeit not its letter, a ‘near-miss’ does not of itself mean that an expulsion decision constitutes a disproportionate interference with an appellant’s right to respect for private and/or family life.
Judges:
Storey SIJ
Citations:
[2007] UKAIT 00044
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.252520
