All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The prospect of the Claimant proving that the Defendant had erred in making its decision was not sufficiently high to satisfy the test set out in R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal  3WLR 107,  1 FLR 997.
30 May 2012
(1) This was the Claimants renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Upper Tribunal to refuse them permission to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal dated 10 August 2011.
(2) The Claimants, who are nationals of India, were overstayers in the UK. In July 2007, the Claimants applied to remain in the UK, despite their not qualifying under the Immigration Rules applicable at the time. This application was rejected as invalid, as was a later application in September 2007. A valid application was made in July 2008, but this was also refused, and the Claimants were served with ‘Notice to a Person Liable to Removal'.
(3) Appeals to the First Tier Tribunal under Article 8 ECHR and paragraph 395C of HC 395 were dismissed. The Claimants applied for permission to appeal on the basis that:
‘(a) The Immigration Judge's consideration and conclusion that the Appellants' removal did not engage Article 8 and would not amount to an interference with their rights is arguably perverse;
(b) The Immigration Judge failed to properly or at all consider that the second and third appellants had remained in the United Kingdom for a considerable period of time as children.'
To read the full story, 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...