Farinloye & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Farinloye & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Immigration Judge's determination related only to the lawfulness of removal under Article 8 ECHR and 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. The judicial review grounds advanced by the claimants were mistaken and did not justify quashing the Secretary of State's decision.

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
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judicial review claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Indefinite Leave to Remain, Discretionary Leave, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Immigration Appeals, Policy Application
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Indefinite Leave to Remain Discretionary Leave Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Immigration Appeals +1 more

Case Brief

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State was compelled to grant indefinite leave to remain following an allowed appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully exercised discretion in granting only discretionary leave instead of indefinite leave
  3. 3 Whether the judicial review grounds properly challenged the Secretary of State's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Judge's determination related only to the lawfulness of removal under Article 8 ECHR and 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. The judicial review grounds advanced by the claimants were mistaken and did not justify quashing the Secretary of State's decision.

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