LexisLibrary and LexisPSL
Sign up for a free trial today and get full access for a weekTrial
The reasons given for the Defendant's decision to refuse the Claimant's asylum claim were found to be sufficient. As such, the decisions were therefore held not to be unlawful.
14 December 2012
(1) The Claimant, a Turkish national, arrived in the UK in August 2004. He made an asylum application which was refused on 18 May 2005. No further applications were made for leave to remain. On 13 September 2011, the Claimant was arrested with a view to removal and was served with a refusal notice. A further letter was sent to the Claimant on 9 December 2011, confirming that leave to remain had been refused. The 9 December letter explained that it had been determined that the Claimant did not qualify for leave under the Legacy Programme for dealing with cases.
(2) The grounds for judicial review complained that the decision letter of 13 September 2011 contained no adequate explanation for the refusal. The Claimant also submitted that the Defendant's caseworkers were not following the appropriate guidelines when considering Legacy cases.
(3) The Defendant's position was that the Legacy Programme was intended to deal with old asylum cases that had already been considered where the applicant had remained in the UK. The Defendant stated that the applicant being considered under the Legacy Programme did not automatically require an immigration decision, as there had been no fresh application for consideration.
(4) The Defendant further alleged that there had only been anecdotal or general evidence provided, and thus it was not appropriate to draw a general conclusion as to inconsistencies in applying the relevant guidelines.
(5) The Claimant alleged that residence of six to eight years would ordinarily justify the grant of indefinite leave to remain. Whilst the Defendant responded that because between April 2006 and January 2010 the Defendant was an absconder, he could not be permitted to take advantage of his residence.
(6) The only basis that permission was granted for was the ground that fuller reasons ought to have been given regarding the decision served on 13 September 2011.
(7) HELD: The Court held that the Claimant had not made any fresh applications or submitted further grounds, despite having had ample opportunity to do so. In light of this, the Court could not find that the reasons given in the decision letters were insufficient. As such, the Court found that the decision had been in no way flawed, and as such the application was rejected.
 - Reasons not insufficient.
 - Conclusion.
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