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 judge had failed to address Rule 395C issues.
Judges:
Sedley, Jacob, Lloyd LJJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 174, [2009] INLR 558
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Patel (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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317956
