Please note my case is not a case of an overstayer, the respondent was just denying me a right of appeal. I have been on this case for over 4 years now.
1. First judicial review on the same case (paragraph 276 ade (vi) and article
to the Court of Appeal. Court of Appeal refused my application on the basis that "I have an alternative remedy of 28 day to returned my application back to the respondent for reconsideration under paragraph 276 ade (vi) and article 8 since I wasn't an overstayer"
2. Application returned and fresh claim lodged. The fresh claim under the same case was refused again and second JR lodged but was successful and the SSHD agreed to reconsider my case and pay my cost.
3. SSHD reconsidered the case again and refused it third time without a right of appeal. JR application of the third decision lodged at the Upper Tribunal and today I received the following decision from the Upper tribunal regarding the case
The decision I received for the third JR from the upper tribunal is as follows:
Following consideration of all documents lodged, including acknowledgement of service and the
supplementary grounds of defense
1. The applicant who is now 33 years of age , entered to the UK in 2009 at the age of 25 as a
student. His parents and siblings lived here. His case is that his removal would be in breach
of article 8 of the Human Right Convention as a disproportionate interfere with his right to
private and family life which, it is averred, still continues with his parents and siblings.
2. The respondent was entitled to conclude, on the material provided, that the applicant did not
meet the requirement of appendix FM or paragraph 276 ade of the immigration rules, there
are no challenges to this conclusion
Note: this is fresh claim under those rules and there was previous ground place before the
upper tribunal and court of appeal when I first applied under those rule that my case
amount to "compelling circumstances not sufficiently recognised under the rule"
Those grounds was also part of the evidence I place before the upper tribunal in this
current proceedings and was also sent to the respondent but the tribunal is not saying
anything about it.
Also, this is not a case of an overstayer.
3. It is averred the applicant has a good prospect of success, the reswpondent having failed
failed properly to have considered the material (ground 1), to have ignored the family life
argument.
4. The acknowledgement of service is misconceived at [13], the existence of an out of country
appeal remedy is irrelevant to the question to the decision whether to certify was unlawful
5. Having considered the materials for myself, I consider on no legitimate view of the fact,
could a judge properly directing himself as to the law, including section 117B allow the
appeal, it is bound to fail, even if as it is claimed the APPLICANT HAVE A FAMILY LIFE HERE.
n all the circumstances , the respondent was entitled to certify the claim.
Please Note under point 5: This is not a case of overstayer.
6. Ground 5 & 6, as this case is not arguable, that distinguish it from those cases certified under
section 94B Kaire and byndloss v sshd.
7. For the reasons set out in the supplementary ground at [21] to [24], it cannot be argued that
the settlement of the previous case by consent is an indication that it is arguable, given
the basis on which it was settled.
Order of the Upper Tribunal:
I order that the applicants pay the respondent 's cost which i assess at £850, subject to any
objection to be made in writing within 21 days. In all the circumstances of this case, 3 hours
claimed for the AOS most of which was generic is manifestly excessive. Similarly 5 hours on the
supplementary grounds is also excessive.
Finally, I was given an opportunity for oral reconsideration hearing.
Please kindly advice me.
