The Secretary of State’s failure to make a removal decision at the same time as, or shortly after, the decision to refuse leave to remain was unlawful.
Judges:
Sedley, Rimer, Sullivan LJJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Civ 159, [2011] Imm AR 484
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Sapkota and Another (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Nov-2011
In each case, the respondent had refused an application for leave to remain, but had taken no prompt steps for their removal. The applicants now said that this rendered the original decision ‘not in accordance with the law’ under section 84(1)(e) of . .
Not followed – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Nov-2013
The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the . .
Not Followed – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 1-Jun-2012
Where a first instance judge is faced with a point on which there are two previous inconsistent decisions from judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction, then the second of those decisions should be followed in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429728
