An applicant may inadvertently fail to submit the correct specified application form and thereby also provide the wrong fee payment or none at all. An applicant may also fail for one reason or the other to have their biometrics taken within the required time limit. These errors and failures may ultimately result in invalidation of a timely submitted leave application and therefore rejection with the result that such an applicant becomes an overstayer. An invalid application does not extend leave under section 3C of the 1971 Act (as per Iqbal & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 838, mentioned below). Section 3C does not extend leave where the application is made after the applicant’s current leave has expired.
Category Archives: Judicial Review
Outrageous, Oppressive, and Unconstitutional Behaviour of the Home Office Wins Non- EEA Family Member Damages
The judgment in Santos, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 609 (Admin) is quite lengthy, running to 163 paragraphs, however makes most interesting reading in relation to the issues raised.
Further Submissions: So Are the Home Office Serious About Making Failed Asylum Seekers Submit Charged Applications In Non – Protection based Human Rights Claims?
The Home Office published a new policy on 19 February 2016 as regards Further Submissions from failed asylum claimants. There still remains the general requirement for claimants to submit their further submissions in person at Liverpool( subject to certain exceptions), however a new stated Policy Intention has been published. This includes relevantly, requiring protection based further submissions from failed asylum seekers to be made in person in Liverpool. Further submissions on non-protection human rights grounds are required to be made by means of a valid charged application by post to the Home Office.
Masalskas v SSHD: EEA National Fails In A Regulation 24AA Certification Test Case Challenge In 2015 But Subsequently Wins His Substantive Deportation Appeal In The Upper Tribunal In 2016
The Judicial Review Regulation 24AA Certification Challenge in the Upper Tribunal:
In December 2015, the Upper Tribunal published the case of Masalskas, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Regulations 24AA and 29AA EEA Regs) (IJR) [2015] UKUT 677, an EEA Regulation 24AA certification judicial review challenge in which I applied for and obtained an interim order suspending removal of an EEA national whilst at the same time settling the grounds of claim in March 2015.
Read more about the case of Masalskas
FGM and Trafficking Case : Rare Substantive Cart Judicial Review Claim Succeeds in the Adminstrative Court
G & H, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 239 was acknowledged by the Administrative Court to be “ one of those rare cases in which the court has given permission to proceed in an application for judicial review of an Upper Tribunal FTT permission refusal”. As was noted by the Court at paragraph 5 of their judgement, one of the features of the case was that the Secretary of State advanced contentions which, even though the claimant had satisfied the test identified in Cart and other procedural requirements in CPR 54.7A, would require the claimant to surmount a new substantive hurdle limiting the grounds upon which the High Court can grant judicial review.