Ivlev, R (on the application of) v Entry Clearance Officer, New York

Ivlev, R (on the application of) v Entry Clearance Officer, New York

The refusal of entry clearance was lawful as the decision-maker was entitled to consider the outstanding criminal charges and the potential impact on public good, foreign relations, and public resources. The unlawful surrender of decision-making by the ECO to UKBA London was a procedural error but did not affect the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Pavel Ivlev; Defendant: Entry Clearance Officer, New York
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Judicial Review, Delegation of Decision Making, Immigration Rules, Points Based System, Exclusion Conducive to Public Good, Right of Appeal
Immigration Law Administrative Law Public Law Entry Clearance Judicial Review Delegation of Decision Making Immigration Rules Points Based System +2 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavel Ivlev

Claimant

Entry Clearance Officer, New York

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of entry clearance under paragraph 320(19) of the Immigration Rules was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the Entry Clearance Officer unlawfully surrendered decision-making to UKBA London
  3. 3 Whether the decision-maker failed to properly assess the credibility of criminal charges against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal of entry clearance was lawful as the decision-maker was entitled to consider the outstanding criminal charges and the potential impact on public good, foreign relations, and public resources. The unlawful surrender of decision-making by the ECO to UKBA London was a procedural error but did not affect the substantive outcome, and in the court's discretion, did not warrant quashing the decision. The claimant had no right of appeal under section 82 of the 2002 Act due to the Points Based System and relevant statutory provisions.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed