15 Oct 2021
Because the applicant was not covered by any prevailing immigration policy and the Director reasonably concluded there were no strong extenuating circumstances warranting exceptional consideration, the refusal to extend her stay was not Wednesbury-unreasonable and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
29 Jan 2008
The Director did not act unlawfully: he made direct enquiries, the applicant and spouse had been separated for an extended period with no positive steps toward reconciliation, no evidence of real risk on return was presented, and the Director lawfully applied a restrictive dependency policy and was entitled to refuse renewal absent exceptional circumstances.
4 Dec 2006
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the respondent's refusal of the dependent visa extension was not irrational, the applicant had been divorced and sponsorship withdrawn, and the old policy of unconditional stay after three years was no longer in force.
31 Jul 2006
The Director's refusal was lawful because, on the material before him, there was insufficient evidence to establish the requisite dependency (including compelling emotional dependence) or that the sponsor could financially maintain the applicant; the Director did not fail to take into account material considerations and the decision was within the bounds of reasonable discretion under a strict immigration policy.
16 Sept 2005
The Director’s three refusal decisions were unlawful because the decision‑maker failed to take into account relevant matters and adopted a one‑sided, blinkered approach such that no reasonable decision‑maker could have reached the same conclusions; therefore the decisions are quashed and the matter must be reconsidered fairly.