Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Upper Tribunal considers lawfulness of granting Discretionary Leave to a child

THANKS FOR READING

Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more

TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER

By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

The Upper Tribunal considers Home Office policy on what length of leave to grant to a child in the case of R (on the application of Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (duration of leave – policy) IJR [2015] UKUT 561 (IAC). The case descends into an argument around the Edgehill, Singh etc fiasco and which set of rules and policies apply and, unlike in the case of SM, where applications for ILR had been made, the applicant child in this case had applied for and (unsurprisingly) received Discretionary Leave.

The headnote:

(1) The decision of the High Court in R (SM & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1144 (Admin) relating to the 2009 Discretionary Leave policy and instruction only applies to cases where the decision to grant leave to remain was made prior to 24 June 2013.

(2) There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to grant ILR or to consider granting ILR in circumstances where no formal application for ILR has been made.

(3) It is legitimate for the Secretary of State to grant leave to remain for 30 months on an application that is decided on or after 9 July 2012 irrespective of when the application was made unless it was made between 9 July 2012 and 6 September 2012: see para [56] of Singh and Khalid v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 74.

 

Relevant articles chosen for you
Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.

Comments