MJ -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order and application for permission to apply for Judicial Review)

Immigration and Asylum Chamber (Upper Tribunal)TribunalsAnonymity Order

Claim Number: JR-2024-BHM-000053

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

In the matter of an application for permission to apply for Judicial Review

27 August 2024

Before:
Upper Tribunal Judge Owens

Between:
The King
on the application of MJ
-v-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department


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

Order by Upper Tribunal Judge Owens:

Permission is refused

An application without notice lodged on 15 June 2024 is admitted.

The application to add Birmingham City Council Trust as a interested party is refused

An anonymity order is made on the basis that the applicant’s children are subject to Child Protection Plans

“Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the applicant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies to, amongst others, both the applicant and the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings”

Reasons
(1) The applicant seeks to challenge a decision by the respondent dated 17 May 2024 refusing the applicant’s brother YJ’s application for a visit visa.

(2) The named applicant is not represented but works as a self-employed solicitor. The application is in-time but the applicant did not follow the pre-action protocol procedure.

(3) The application was lodged on 5 June 2024. On 15 June 2024 the applicant lodged an application without consent which attached the grounds of review and further evidence. I give permission to admit the further grounds and evidence because the applicant is a litigant in person and there is no prejudice to the respondent because the grounds and documents have been addressed by the respondent in the acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of defence.

(4) I refuse to add Birmingham City Council Trust as an interested party to the application because there is no indication that the claim form has been served on the Trust in accordance with the procedure rules, nor that the Trust is aware of this application. Further it is unclear why the Trust is an interested party.

(5) The application for permission is firstly refused on the basis that the named applicant is not the subject of the decision under challenge and therefore does not have sufficient “standing” to bring the claim pursuant to s31(3) if the Senior Courts Act 1981. The application does not explain sufficiently why the applicant has standing other than to assert that he needs his brother to assist him with his children’s care. There is no application to amend the original application in this respect.

(6) In any event, even had I not refused permission on this basis, I would have refused permission on the basis that the claim is unarguable.

(7) The claim is poorly particularised. As I understand the grounds, they are that the decision is irrational because it fails to take into account the letter from Birmingham City Council Trust about the applicant’s children; the decision is irrational because there is an over-reliance on the applicant’s brother’s previous overstaying and the decision is irrational because the decision maker failed to have regard to the applicant’s brother’s reasons for his previous overstaying.

(8) The decision letter unarguably took into account the letter from Birmingham City Council Trust. Further, and in any event the letter by the social worker lacked particular specificity. There is no explanation as to why the applicant’s children are subject to child protection plans.

(9) When deciding whether the applicant’s brother is a genuine visitor who will leave the UK at the end of his visit, the respondent was unarguably entitled to place weight on the applicant’s immigration history including his previous overstaying from 10 October 2015 to 10 June 2016.

(10) It cannot be argued that the respondent irrationally ignored the applicant’s brother’s reason for overstaying. The applicant appears to have been provided a conditional offer to study at the University of Chester on 7 March 2015. He does not explain fully why he was not able secure a CAS prior to his visa expiring on 10 October 2015. He did not submit an application in order to extend his leave in order to obtain a CAS and does not explain why he did not leave the UK within the period of his leave in order to apply for entry clearance as a student from abroad.

(11) The respondent was manifestly entitled to conclude that the applicant’s brother did not meet the requirements of the immigration rules in respect of visitors in circumstances where he had previously overstayed his visa and does not have strong economic and personal ties to Pakistan. The applicant is divorced and unemployed and has no dependent children. He lives in a home owned by his parents. The source of his income is unclear. His stated purpose to come to the UK is to assist his brother and his wife with their children. The applicant does not address why it was irrational for the respondent to conclude that his brother would not leave the UK in these circumstances.

Costs
(12) The applicant will pay the respondent’s costs of £270.00, subject to any representations in writing to be received within 9 days of the date on which this order is sent.

Reasons
(13) The respondent’s costs were reasonably incurred in defending the claim.