All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
There was a reasonable prospect of the Claimant successfully demonstrating that her removal to Malawi would constitute interference with her Article 8 ECHR rights.
22 June 2012
David Holgate QC (extempore judgment)
The Claimant, a Malawi citizen, entered the UK in May 2003 on a student visa. Leave to remain was extended until 2009. In 2009 the Claimant applied for further leave to remain. The application was refused. A further application was made in February 2010, but this application was also refused. Notice that the Claimant was an overstayer was served on her in October 2011, and she was detained pending removal in November. The Claimant made representations to remain on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights grounds. The Defendant later certified that claim as clearly unfounded.
(1) The Claimant applied for judicial review of this refusal. The principle issues were identified as
(a) whether the proposed removal would constitute an interference with the exercise of the Claimant's right to respect for her family life;
(b) if so, whether such interference would have consequences of such gravity as potentially to engage the operation of art 8; and
(c) whether such interference would be proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved (the proportionality issue).
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.
An authoritative source of case reports covering every aspect of immigration, asylum and...