UTIAC Legacy cases – ‘conclusion’ issue – (1) It is plainly wrong to contend that a case under the respondent’s so-called ‘legacy programme’ can be ‘concluded’ only by the grant of leave or by actual removal, given that there was no amnesty that applied to such cases; they fell to be decided under the relevant Immigration Rule (para 395C or 353B, as the case may be) and the guidance in chapter 53 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance that applied as at the date of the review of the case under the legacy programme.
(2) It follows that, in the event that consideration of the relevant Immigration Rule and guidance produced a negative answer, the rationale of the Supreme Court at [25]-[35] of Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 72 applies, that is, the Secretary of State is entitled to proceed on the basis that those unlawfully in the UK will leave of their own accord; she is not obliged to remove an individual or issue a removal decision.
(3) It is unarguable that the expressed aim to ‘conclude’ cases in the legacy programme by either the grant of leave or by removal was anything other an aim or aspiration to remove all individuals who had no basis of stay. In particular, it is unarguable that the expressed aim or aspiration was addressed to individuals and/or that it amounted to an irrevocable and unambiguous commitment to grant leave to anyone who did not meet the requirements of the relevant rule (395C/353B, as the case may be) and the applicable chapter 53 guidance and who was not removed.
Gill UTJ
[2014] UKUT 375 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Immigration
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536216