R (on the application of Reid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1772 (Admin)
The Defendant had correctly certified the Claimant’s claim under section 96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The First-tier Tribunal had correctly considered that the Claimant had no real relationship with his children and the Defendant had been entitled to make her certification decision on that basis.
16 May 2014
Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court
(1) The Claimant, Mr Alrando Reid, was a Jamaican national who challenged the Defendant’s decision to certify his claim under section 96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘NIAA 2002’) and to refuse to revoke a deportation order.
(2) The Claimant entered the UK in 2001 and was granted leave to enter for two weeks. He married and applied for leave to remain. The Claimant’s marriage failed and the he was in a relationship with another partner at the time of this hearing. The Claimant had two children in the UK, aged 12 and 6. He had an extensive criminal history of serious offending.
(3) The Claimant was convicted of a serious offence in 2009, which resulted in deportation proceedings being started.
(4) The Claimant contended that since his appeal had been considered, there had been jurisprudential developments in the case of Ruiz Zambrano v ONEm  EUECJ c-34/09, which adjusted the way in which his case should be dealt with, in particular in relation to his children.
(5) HELD: The Court rejected the Claimant’s submissions, finding that the Defendant was entitled to make her decision on the available facts at the time. The Claimant’s relationships with his children was said to be tenuous, and evidence of the closeness of that relationship lacked credibility.
(6) Acknowledging that the Claimant could not rely on jurisprudence that post-dated the tribunal decision, the Court held that, in any event, the case did not assist the Claimant. The tribunal had correctly considered the position of the Claimant and his children, and the Defendant was entitled to take the approach she did in relation to the certification.
(7) The Court held that even if it had not been satisfied with the certification, any error’s relied upon would have been so academic that no relief could have been justified.
(8) The application was thus refused.
 – Facts available.
 – Tenuous relationship.
 – Jurisprudence not help.
 – Certification decision.
 – Academic.
 – Refused.