The Upper Tribunal gives in judgment in R (Shoaib) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The Secretary of State made a decision on 5 March 2014 to curtail the Applicant’s leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student so to expire after 60 days, on 5 May 2014, following the revocation of his college’s sponsorship licence. The decision, however, was validly served on 2 June 2014, i.e., after the expiry of the 60-day time limit. The Appellant sought to argue that the decision, when served, was an “immigration decision” attracting a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal and engaging section 3D of the Immigration Act 1971. The Applicant also relied on Article 8 in the light of the Court of Appeal’s judgments in Ahsan and Balajigari.
In dismissing the Judicial Review claim, the Upper Tribunal held that the “Where a decision to curtail leave to remain with notice of a future date of curtailment has not been validly served on an individual before the date upon which leave to remain is due to expire, that decision has no effect”. The Upper Tribunal held that the decision, therefore, did not attract a right of appeal and section 3D of the Immigration Act 1971 was not engaged. The Upper Tribunal also held that Article 8 was not engaged but even if was engaged the Applicant was not entitled to any relief.
Zane Malik appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The Upper Tribunal’s judgment is available here.