Upper Tribunal’s judgment in R (Mansoor) v SSHD (Balajigari – effect of judge’s decision) [2020] UKUT 126 (IAC)

Upper Tribunal’s judgment in R (Mansoor) v SSHD (Balajigari – effect of judge’s decision) [2020] UKUT 126 (IAC)


CategoryNews Author Zane Malik Date

The Upper Tribunal reports its judgment in R (Mansoor) v SSHD (Balajigari – effect of judge’s decision) [2020] UKUT 126 (IAC).

This Judicial Review claim concerned a challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to grant limited, as opposed to indefinite, leave to remain to the applicant.

The applicant’s application for indefinite leave to remain was refused by the Home Secretary on the ground that he had dishonestly provided inaccurate figures to HMRC as to his income in his tax returns. On appeal, the First Tier Tribunal held that his removal from the United Kingdom would be incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. In the light of the First Tier Tribunal’s decision, the Home Secretary granted him limited, as opposed to indefinite, leave to remain.

The applicant challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to grant him limited, as opposed to indefinite, leave to remain by way of this Judicial Review claim.

The applicant argued that the Home Secretary’s decision to grant him limited, as opposed to indefinite, leave to remain was unlawful because the process required by the Court of Appeal in Balajigari v Secretary for State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673 was not followed by the Home Secretary. Further, he argued that the Home Secretary failed to take into account certain relevant matters.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Judicial Review claim and, in the Judicial Head Note, summarised the general conclusion as follows:

“The process required by the Court of Appeal in Balajigari may be carried out by the Tribunal in effect applying that guidance, such that the Secretary of State’s failure to do so is rendered immaterial”. 

The Upper Tribunal held that the Home Secretary’s decision to grant the applicant limited, as opposed to indefinite, leave to remain and the process adopted was not unlawful. The Upper Tribunal also held that in the light of the applicant’s conduct it was not conceivable that the Home Secretary could come to any different decision other than to grant the limited leave to remain was that was granted in this case.

Zane Malik appeared for the Home Secretary.

The Upper Tribunal’s judgment is available here:


Related Barristers


Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email