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 the 2002 Act.
Arden, Jackson, Aikens LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1320, [2012] Imm AR 25, [2012] INLR 218
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 84(1)(e)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTE (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Mar-2009
The applicant had been refused asylum, but because she was a minor had been given discretionary leave to remain. She applied for an extension, but after a two year delay, this was refused. She now said that both the respondent and the immigration . .
AppliedMirza and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Feb-2011
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. . .

Cited by:
CitedPatel (Consideration of Sapkota – Unfairness) India UTIAC 16-Dec-2011
UTIAC (1) There is no substantive segregation of considerations going to an extension of stay and removal where the appellant seeks leave to remain outside the rules on 395C factors and these are considered on . .
Not FollowedPatel 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 March 2021; Ref: scu.448323