CBW -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Immigration and Asylum Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

Claim number: JR-2024-LDS-000017

In the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Judicial Review

22 July 2025

Before:

HH Judge Davis-White KC

Between:

The King on the application of
CBW

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (UT rule 30(1))

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the applicant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the respondent and the Reply and GLD letter dated 23 May 2024

Order by HH Judge Davis-White KC sitting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal:

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the applicant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the applicant likely to lead members of the public to identify the applicant without that individual’s express consent.  There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name and whether orally or in writing references to the cipher “CBW”.   Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

The person mentioned in the Confidential Schedule to this Order  (“LF”) (which shall not be made public) is appointed the litigation friend of the Applicant.  Within 7 days of service of his Order upon the Applicant’s lawyers a written consent by LF confirming that he had been provided with and understands he duties of a litigation friend as set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 of “Joint Presidential Guidance No. 1 of 2024: Appointment of litigation friends in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)” (“LF Guidance”)  shall be filed and served

Permission is granted for paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Reply and for the letter of rejoinder from GLD dated 23 May 2024.

Time is extended to issue the UTIAC 1 herein to 17 April 2024      

Permission to proceed with JR is granted in relation only to certification of the human rights claim under s94(1) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“NIAA 2002”).

Reasons

Anonymity

1. Although no anonymity order is sought it is clearly appropriate following the guidance in Guidance Note 2022 No 2: Anonymity Order and Orders in private.  The applicant (“A”) is clearly a child probably age 14.

    Litigation Friend

    2. Following LF Guidance, an order appointing LF is appropriate. No formal written consent has been provided and it is appropriate that it should be and also that LF should confirm that he understands his duties as a litigation friend.  

    Reply and Rejoinder

    3. There is no permission (and no application for permission for) a reply. However, in part the Reply raises relevant submissions regarding the date of the reply to the PAP letter and accordingly permission is given for paragraphs 1 to 4 and to the extent necessary permission is given for the GLD letter of rejoinder dated 23 May 2024.

    Timing

    4. Filing of a slightly defective form on 16.04.24 (on the last day of the maximum three month permitted period) resulted in is rejection and a filing the following day.  It would be disproportionate not to extend time. SSHD submits in any event 3 months is the longstop and that the  application has not been made promptly,  There is limited available evidence and the SSHD was unlikely to have considered no JR application would be made until after expiry of the 3 month period, not least after receipt of the PAP letter. On balance I would no refuse to admit the application on these grounds.

    JR Permission

    5. This is a challenge to the SSHD’s decision by letter dated 17.01.24 to refuse A’s application dated 16.08.22 for further leave to remain and to certify A’s human right’s claim as clearly unfounded under s94(1) NIAA 2002.

    6. The SSHD found that A did not meet the eligibility requirements of the 10 year child route as his parents are neither in he UK nor have leave nor are being granted leave to enter or remain or have ILR.  This decision is not understood to be challenged and is unassailable on JR grounds.

    7. The SSHD found A failed to meet the eligibility requirements under the Private Life Route on the basis that A had failed to have lived continuously in the UK since his claimed date of entry of 25 December 2018 for a least 7 years.  Although the SSHD did no consider that evidence of the date of entry had been produced and may have been wrong in his respect given A’s passport stamps, the SSHD assumed in favour of A that he entered he UK when he said he had,   Accordingly no relevant error was made as regards the relevant decision and if I am wrong about that then the outcome would have been or would have been highly likely to be the same even if SSHD had identified evidence supporting the claimed date of entry and permission on his ground must be refused (s16(3C)-(3E) Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

    8. The SSHD decision on the human rights claim does not give rise to an arguable ground for JR which has a real prospect of success. The evidence was considered and the decision reached was one that was not arguably (with a real prospect of success) irrational on Wednesbury grounds and was one open to the SSHD. 

    9. There is an argument with a real prospect of success that the certification decision was Wednesbury irrational. There were respectable arguments based on the evidence as to why the human rights claim was a good one. The argument that it cannot be said that it was bound to fail has a real prospect of success. Permission to proceed with JR should be granted in relation to his aspect only.                    

    Costs

    10. Costs reserved.

    Notes for the Applicant

    1. To continue the proceedings a further fee of £874.00, or an Application for Fee Remission if appropriate, must be lodged within 9 days of the date this order was sent (see below).  Failure to pay the fee or lodge such an application within that period will result in the proceedings being automatically struck out.
    2. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, you may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing.  Any such request must be made to the Tribunal in writing within 9 days of the date on which this notice is sent and must be accompanied by a fee of £438 or an Application for Fee Remission. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course.  However, if all parties agree – and the time estimates for substantive hearing allow – the reconsideration hearing may take place immediately before the substantive hearing.  The Upper Tribunal must be notified that the parties agree to this course of action within 21 days of the date of the application for reconsideration.

    Case Management Directions

    1. The respondent and any other person to whom this notice is sent who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds must provide the applicant and the Tribunal with detailed grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, as well as any written evidence, within 35 days of the date on which this decision was sent (as given below).
    2. Any reply, to include any further evidence on which the applicant wishes to rely, accompanied by any appropriate application to the Tribunal, must be filed and served within 14 days of the service of the detailed grounds for contesting the claim.
    3. The applicant must file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent not later than 21 days before the scheduled date of hearing the following materials:
      a) A skeleton argument which must be concise and must not exceed 20 pages, cross-referenced to the trial bundle and bundle of authorities;
      b) An indexed and paginated trial bundle, containing all evidence relied upon;
      c) An agreed authorities bundle, with index, containing all relevant:
      i) provisions of primary or secondary legislation (including Immigration Rules)
      ii) policies, guidance or other like instruments
      iii) judicial decisions, whether favourable to the applicant or not.
    4. The respondent and any other person wishing to make representations at the hearing must file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant a skeleton argument which also complies with the requirements above not later than 7 days before the scheduled date of hearing.
    5. Where a party (or other person) is relying on a skeleton argument composed at an earlier stage of the present proceedings, this must be re-served, in accordance with the relevant time limit specified above.
    6. Where a bundle has been created at an earlier stage in the present proceedings, it will suffice for the party responsible for such bundle to update and revise the same, not later than 21 days before the scheduled date of hearing, with appropriate new index and pagination, and to lodge and serve same.
    7. The parties are reminded of their obligations to reconsider the merits of their respective cases upon receipt of further evidence from the opposing party.

    Listing Directions

    1. The earliest available hearing date will be allocated to the substantive hearing of this claim.
    2. The application is to be listed for 2.5 hours; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.