AS V SSHD – 10.02.2017

On 09.02.2017 the client was detained while reporting and handed over removal directions for 10.02.2017 evening. The decision was dated 24.01.2017 but was not served until 09.02.2017. The delay seemed intentional so that the client could be detained.

Mr Zahab Jamali of Law Lane Solicitors then challenged the detention and removal by way of judicial review, seeking urgent consideration for a stay against removal. The matter was lodged at 4.30 pm on 10.02.2017, just a few hours before the flight and at 7.30 pm, Honourable Mr Justice Garnham granted an injunction, making the observations that the Claimant had a good prima facie case of unlawful detention.

By Tahir Shahab Khan (Director of Law Lane Solicitors)
[/vc_row]

3 Comments
  • bernyLaw
    Posted at 10:42h, 05 January Reply

    Judicial Review can only start once all other appeal rights have been exhausted. Speak to our specialist immigration team and book a consultation to receive bespoke and expert immigration advice. Access the full judgement here: QR Pakistan R on the application of v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413 LEXVISA Solicitors and Barristers Legal representatives, such as our specialist immigration and visa law firm, are qualified to advise you on immigration law and your immigration status.

  • widalLaw
    Posted at 23:44h, 22 January Reply

    Access the full judgement here: QR Pakistan R on the application of v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413 LEXVISA Solicitors and Barristers Legal representatives, such as our specialist immigration and visa law firm, are qualified to advise you on immigration law and your immigration status. It is possible to instruct an immigration and visa legal representative to submit an out of country appeal a Deport First Appeal Later decision.

  • atolllLaw
    Posted at 05:12h, 25 January Reply

    This is particularly clear from the words “unacceptable behaviours”. It is difficult to conceive of a looser, more open – ended linguistic formula. Fundamentally, we consider that paragraph 55.4.4 simply provides case workers with some basic guidance as to how the statutory power might be exercised v The exercise of the statutory power in every case must be harmonious with the statutory language, accord with the underlying legislative intention and further the policy and objects of the statute, duly infused with the avoidance of fetter of discretion in accordance with the hallowed British Oxygen principle British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610.

Post A Comment

error: Content is protected !!