MS & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

MS & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The RLR policy is lawful, sufficiently flexible, and does not constitute a rule requiring laying before Parliament. Its aims are legitimate and the interference with Article 8 rights is proportionate. The refusal of ILR to MS and MBT was rational and within the Secretary of State's discretion, given their exclusion from refugee protection due to serious criminality and the policy's objectives. The grant of ILR in such cases is only justified in exceptional circumstances, which were not established here.

Parties
Appellant: MS; Appellant: MBT; Respondent/appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Upper Tribunal and High Court
Outcome
Appeals of MS and MBT dismissed; Secretary of State's appeal allowed; High Court order quashing refusal of ILR to MS set aside.
Legal Topics
Restricted Leave Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Refugee Convention Article 1 F, Judicial Review, Indefinite Leave to Remain (ilr), Immigration Rules, Discretionary Leave Policy
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Restricted Leave Policy Article 8 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Refugee Convention Article 1 F Judicial Review +3 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MS

Appellant

MBT

Appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Upper Tribunal and High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Lawfulness of the Secretary of State's Restricted Leave Policy (RLR policy)
  2. 2 Whether the RLR policy unlawfully fetters discretion or is ultra vires
  3. 3 Compatibility of the RLR policy with Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The RLR policy is lawful, sufficiently flexible, and does not constitute a rule requiring laying before Parliament. Its aims are legitimate and the interference with Article 8 rights is proportionate. The refusal of ILR to MS and MBT was rational and within the Secretary of State's discretion, given their exclusion from refugee protection due to serious criminality and the policy's objectives. The grant of ILR in such cases is only justified in exceptional circumstances, which were not established here.

Court Disposition

Appeals of MS and MBT dismissed; Secretary of State's appeal allowed; High Court order quashing refusal of ILR to MS set aside.

Orders

  • Appeals of MS and MBT from the Upper Tribunal dismissed.
  • Secretary of State's appeal against High Court order in MS2 allowed; order quashing refusal of ILR set aside.