All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The Defendant had not unlawfully introduced a new policy that had not been publicised, and the Claimants' further representations had been lawfully resolved.
19 July 2012
(1) The claims arise from the ‘legacy cases', which were some 50,000 outstanding immigration applications received before March 2007 that had formed an overwhelming backlog and were thus transferred to the specially constituted ‘Casework Resolution Directorate (CRD). In July 2011, the remaining 116,000 cases were transferred to a new body, the Care Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU). Three of the relevant decisions challenged were made by the CRD, and the remaining was taken by the CAAU. Each of the four Claimants had had their asylum claims and further representations refused.
(2) The Claimants allege that the Defendant erred in
(a) Failing to seek Parliamentary approval for a modification of her policy applied to those considered by the CRU and later the CAAU, specifically regarding the policy that leave would be granted to those with 6 years residence;
(b) In advising the CRD caseworkers that an applicant who has actively attempted to resolve their status in pursuing their applications will have a stronger case.
(c) Failing to publicise aspects of her policy and practice including: (i) a person who actively attempts to resolve their case will have a stronger case; (ii) 6 years of residence would result in a grant to leave; (iii) prospects of removal would be a relevant factor.
(d) Failing to consider the delay on the Defendant's own part in enforcing removal was a relevant factor;
(e) Failing to provide the Claimants' with the opportunity for interview or representations;
(f) Failing to provide sufficient reasons for its decision.
To read the full case summary and to view the case transcript, you must subscribe to Jordans Public Law Online (if you already subscribe click here to log in).
To request a free trial click here and select Jordans Public Law online from the drop down menu.