The claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to deport him failed before the adjudicator. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused leave to appeal to that Tribunal. He sought judicial review of that refusal. The issue was whether the ‘public interest’ in paragraph 154 of the Immigration Rules could include the interests of the Sikh community as well as the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control. Once again, the adjudicator had considered himself bound by dicta in an earlier High Court case.
Lord Bridge said that the Immigration Rules themselves are quite unlike ordinary delegated legislation, but: ‘are discursive in style, in part merely explanatory and, on their face, frequently offer no more than broad guidance as to how discretion is to be exercised in different typical situations. In so far as they lay down principles to be applied, they generally do so in loose and imprecise terms.’
Judges:
Lord Bridge
Citations:
[1986] 1 WLR 910
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Darsham Singh Sohal QBD 1981
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Administrative
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.442728
