Farinloye & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 203 (11 March 2010)

Farinloye & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 203 (11 March 2010)

The immigration judge's determination allowed the appeal against removal on Article 8 ECHR grounds but did not compel the Secretary of State to grant indefinite leave to remain. The Secretary of State retained discretion to grant leave and was entitled to apply the discretionary leave policy. Collins J erred in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 203
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Esther Farinloye and Others; Defendant/appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judicial review claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Indefinite Leave to Remain, Article 8 ECHR, Discretionary Leave Policy, Judicial Review, Immigration Appeals, Removal Decisions
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Indefinite Leave to Remain Article 8 ECHR Discretionary Leave Policy Judicial Review Immigration Appeals +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Farinloye and Others

Claimants/respondents

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State was compelled to grant indefinite leave to remain following an immigration judge's decision allowing an appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully exercised discretion in granting only discretionary leave to remain

Ratio Decidendi

The immigration judge's determination allowed the appeal against removal on Article 8 ECHR grounds but did not compel the Secretary of State to grant indefinite leave to remain. The Secretary of State retained discretion to grant leave and was entitled to apply the discretionary leave policy. Collins J erred in holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judicial review claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Collins J quashed
  • Claim for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision of 14 November 2006 dismissed