AR (AP), Re Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_33 (26 March 2015)

AR (AP), Re Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_33 (26 March 2015)

The Upper Tribunal did not err in refusing permission to appeal because the First-tier Tribunal acted in accordance with the express instructions of the petitioner's representative to consider Article 8 ECHR outside the Immigration Rules, and the Rules would not have assisted the petitioner given his immigration history. No compelling reason or important point of principle or practice was established to justify judicial review.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_33
Parties
Petitioner: AR (AP); Respondent: Upper Tribunal (UK)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing, Decision on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Immigration Rules, Proportionality, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Permission to Appeal
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Article 8 ECHR Immigration Rules Proportionality Supervisory Jurisdiction Permission to Appeal

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AR (AP)

Petitioner

Upper Tribunal (UK)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing, Decision on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in refusing permission to appeal by failing to consider proportionality under Article 8 ECHR in light of the Immigration Rules
  2. 2 Whether a compelling reason or important point of principle or practice justified judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal did not err in refusing permission to appeal because the First-tier Tribunal acted in accordance with the express instructions of the petitioner's representative to consider Article 8 ECHR outside the Immigration Rules, and the Rules would not have assisted the petitioner given his immigration history. No compelling reason or important point of principle or practice was established to justify judicial review.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petition refused
  • Petitioner found liable for expenses, liability modified to nil due to legal assistance