[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Rai, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 3807 (Admin) (26 January 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/3807.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 3807 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		26 January 2016

1. JAMES GOUDIE QC: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, permission having been refused on the papers by King J on 7 November 2016. The claimant is a national of India born on 14 August 1972. On 13 July 2010, he entered the UK with leave to remain as a student, a leave to remain that was valid after grants of leave to remain and a curtailment, about which there is some controversy, until 24 January 2016.
2. On 21 January 2016, he submitted an application for leave to remain outside the rules. The application was refused by way of a decision dated 8 July 2016. He was detained on the same day. He made further representations on 16 July, which were rejected as a fresh claim on 10 August. He submitted further representations on 16 August. These were rejected as a fresh claim on 7 September. He lodged the current proceedings, initially in the Upper Tribunal, on 20 September 2016.
3. He seeks to challenge his detention and these three decisions to which I have referred, 8 July, 10 August and 7 September 2016, especially the first of those, the decision on 8 July. The basis of the claim for challenge is his contention that his detention was conducted under, "false, baseless, unreasonable, unlawful and misleading facts."
4. King J gave full reasons for refusing permission. He observed that as at 8 July 2016 the claimant had no legal basis to be in the United Kingdom and the defendant, the Secretary of State, was exercising her statutory power to detain him pending his removal. As regards the claimant's challenge to the decision to refuse his application for leave to remain outside the rules and certifying his human rights claim was clearly unfounded, the judge observed that the defendant had had regard to the claimant's medical history and other relevant matters.
5. For the reasons set out in the defendant's acknowledgement of service, King J could find no arguable ground that any of the decisions complained of were unlawful or irrational or otherwise open to challenge on public law grounds. King J said:

"The decision to detain was a lawful exercise of the immigration power to detain pending removal. There is nothing to suggest the Hardial Singh principles have been violated. The period of detention to date is not an unreasonable one. The defendant was entitled to assess the claimant as a person liable to abscond with insufficient close ties and no lawful basis to stay. Removal remains a realistic prospect within a reasonable time. At the date of detention, there were no outstanding applications and the claimant was and remains in possession of a valid travel document.

When the claimant subsequently made his further submissions, these were dealt with by the defendant promptly. The defendant sent directions for removal to India on 22 October 2016 and the only potential remaining bar to removal lies in this application for permission to judicial review.

I can find nothing arguably unlawful or irrational in the other decisions complained of. There is nothing to suggest that the current correct principles of law were not applied either in relation to the application to remain outside the rules or in the certification of the application as clearly unfounded or in the consideration whether the further submissions amounted to a fresh claim. There is nothing to suggest that the defendant did not give the application careful consideration or that she came to irrational conclusions."

6. The claimant has renewed his application for permission by a letter dated 28 November 2016. He contends that he has a reasonable chance of success. He refers to the voluminous documentation that he has submitted, much of it duplicated, culminating in further paperwork today, which he has supported orally this afternoon.
7. I, however, refuse permission. I entirely agree with King J for the reasons that he gave.