Amjad (aka Amin) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] ScotCS CSOH_12 (27 January 2017)

Amjad (aka Amin) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] ScotCS CSOH_12 (27 January 2017)

The requirements for leave to remain under Rule 276ADE must be assessed at the date of application; the respondent properly considered all relevant evidence and factors; the threshold for 'very significant obstacles' to reintegration was correctly applied; and there was no realistic prospect of success under Article 8 outside the Rules. The petitioner's arguments amounted to a 'near miss' and were rejected.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_12
Parties
Pursuer: Muhammad Amjad also known as Muhammad Amin; Defender: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Leave to Remain, Asylum, Private Life, Removal From UK
Immigration Human Rights Article 8 ECHR Leave to Remain Asylum Private Life Removal From UK

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Amjad also known as Muhammad Amin

Pursuer

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defender

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to consider the effect of appeal delays on the 20-year residency rule
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to consider previously submitted evidence of private life
  3. 3 Whether the respondent failed to consider all relevant factors regarding obstacles to reintegration in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements for leave to remain under Rule 276ADE must be assessed at the date of application; the respondent properly considered all relevant evidence and factors; the threshold for 'very significant obstacles' to reintegration was correctly applied; and there was no realistic prospect of success under Article 8 outside the Rules. The petitioner's arguments amounted to a 'near miss' and were rejected.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petition refused
  • Petitioner’s second plea-in-law repelled