Administrative Removal - Request for assistance

[Kelkay]

I have a friend who has been Administratively Removed from the United Kingdom. She told me that all her belongings are still in the UK as she was never given the opportunity for her to go and take them. She wants to know:

(1) how the decision of the Administrative Removal can be quashed so that she could be brought back to the UK so that her future applications to any country would not be affected by her having to always state that she had been removed before from UK? or
(2) what options are available to her to take.
(3) In addition any assistance as to probono lawyers or charities that are able to take up her case.


She entered the UK lawfully with a Student Visa. Thereafter she applied and was granted Tier 2 General. His sponsor had problem so his Tier 2 was curtailed and given 60 days to get a new sponsor. She was also made to be reporting every month. She was not able to get a new sponsor but still made the application for further leave to remain under Tier 2. But her application was refused. So she then applied for Article 8.

She was detained upon her reporting and whilst she was detained she was informed that a decision of her Article 8 had been decided adversely a month earlier and certified as unfounded with an out-of-country appeal but the Home Office preferred not to post the decision to her with the knowledge that she would be coming for her routine reporting so would be served on her after being detained. She was subsequently issued a removal direction on the last working day of the week with the effective day to be removed being the next working day after the weekend holiday.

She did all she could to make a Judicial Review application same Friday from the detention camp and sought urgent treatment in which she served the SSHD via fax. But she was Administratively Removed.

The Upper Tribunal Judge (UTJ) whilst she was airborne decided to refuse her the requested stay on the following relevant basis:

(a) He was informed of the SSHD intention to remove him over a month ago and removal served on him one business day ago (Friday) to be effective today being the first business day after the weekend holiday.

(b) There was nothing exceptional in his Article 8 Application which was bound to fail.

(c) It was open to the SSHD to certify his Article 8 claim as clearly unfounded and remove him whilst permitting him an out-of-country right of appeal.

(d) The process was a lawful one. It is not unlawful to use the opportunity afforded by the applicant reporting to serve him removal papers or to issue removal directions one business day before effective removal has the applicant has been warned that removal was imminent.

Observation

1. The UTJ appeared mistaken on the fact that the Applicant was warned a month earlier whereas she was only given the refusal decision after she was detained on reporting. Is this a good reason for her to seek a review of the UTJ decision?

2. The UTJ kept using "him" or "he" to refer to the applicant who is actually a female.