Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Court of Protection Practice and Procedure Conference 2016

A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking

Public law and Regulation

Case reports and guidance on public law and professional regulation issues

10 JAN 2013

R (on the application of Akinrogbe) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2012] EWHC 3128 (Admin); (2012) PLLR 147

Immigration - Clearly unfounded - Evidence - Best interests

The Defendant had properly considered the best interests of the Claimant's children in making a decision to certify his human rights claims as ‘clearly unfounded'.

7 November 2012

Administrative Court

Sibler J

(1)        The Claimant, a Nigerian national, sought to quash the Defendant's decision to certify his human rights claims as ‘clearly unfounded'.

(2)        The Claimant entered the UK using a false passport. His wife made an application for entry clearance, which was refused. She then entered the UK using false details, accompanied by the Claimant's eldest child. The Claimant and his wife then had two children whilst in the UK.

(3)        On 1 April 2011, the Claimant's wife's asylum and human rights claims were certified as clearly unfounded. She sought permission to apply for judicial review, but permission was refused. The Claimant's wife has not renewed her application.

(4)        The Claimant's challenge to the Defendant's decision was based upon the Defendant:

(a)        Misunderstanding how she ought to have regard to the best interests of the his children;

(b)        Failing to promote the best interests of the children; and

(c)        Failing to consider the Defendant's concern regarding the risk of Female Genital Mutilation (‘FGM').

(5)        HELD: The Court held that none of the grounds under the Claimant's challenge could succeed. The Defendant was found to have considered the best interests of the Claimant's children, their educational and familial needs and the relevant case law. In relation to the claim that the Defendant had failed to promote the best interests of the children, the decision could not be criticised due to the Defendant having considered a letter from the child's head teacher and obtaining information about the Nigerian school system and how it would apply to the Claimant's child.

(6)        The Court held that nothing had been put forward to show that there was any further information that should have been considered by the Defendant. This ground was thus rejected.

(7)        The Court found that the Claimant's human rights claim and his witness statement had not raised the issue of FGM, and as such, there was no basis for a challenge on this ground.

(8)        The Court therefore concluded that the Claimant's case was bound to fail, as such, the application was refused.

Permission refused

Key paragraphs

[47] - First challenge failed.

[54] - Information about Nigerian school system.

[62]-[64] - Nothing further to consider.

[67] - FGM.

[68]-[69] - Conclusion.

Immigration and Nationality Law Reports

Immigration and Nationality Law Reports

An authoritative source of case reports covering every aspect of immigration, asylum and...

More Info from £155.00
Available in Immigration and Human Rights Online
Licensing Law Reports

Licensing Law Reports

Full text reports of cases on all aspects of licensing law and practice.

More Info from £155.00
Available in Public Law and Regulation Online
Subscribe to our newsletters