Patel & Ors, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) & Ors

Patel & Ors, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) & Ors

The claimants failed to demonstrate that the Upper Tribunal's refusal involved an important issue of principle or a compelling reason as required by the Cart test. While there was an arguable error of law regarding Article 8 engagement and proportionality, it was not of such gravity or obviousness to warrant judicial review. The Immigration Judge's assessment was not perverse or plainly wrong, and the case did not 'cry out' for consideration.

Parties
Claimant: Varajanikant Naranbhai Patel; Claimant: Shavikumar Varajanikant Patel; Claimant: Dhrukumar Varajanikant Patel; Claimant: Sonalben Varajanikant Patel; Defendant: Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber); Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Overstayers, Children's Rights
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Proportionality Overstayers Children's Rights

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Varajanikant Naranbhai Patel

Claimant

Shavikumar Varajanikant Patel

Claimant

Dhrukumar Varajanikant Patel

Claimant

Sonalben Varajanikant Patel

Claimant

Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in law in refusing permission to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal's determination on Article 8 ECHR grounds
  2. 2 Whether there was a compelling reason to grant permission for judicial review under the Cart test

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate that the Upper Tribunal's refusal involved an important issue of principle or a compelling reason as required by the Cart test. While there was an arguable error of law regarding Article 8 engagement and proportionality, it was not of such gravity or obviousness to warrant judicial review. The Immigration Judge's assessment was not perverse or plainly wrong, and the case did not 'cry out' for consideration.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused