Iqbal, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A legitimate expectation of a substantive immigration outcome requires a clear and unambiguous representation by an official with appropriate authority. Conflicting administrative records, an informal statement made during an appointment, and an unrelated support notice will not ordinarily satisfy that requirement. The court must assess the alleged representation against the surrounding evidence, including formal decisions, missing documentation and subsequent conduct. Where the claimant and advisers recognised that the information was contradictory and sought clarification, reliance is not established.

The claimant sought judicial review and a mandatory order requiring confirmation that he had been granted refugee status and indefinite leave to remain. His asylum claim had been refused, but erroneous Home Office database entries and a National Asylum Support Service letter suggested that it had been granted. At an appointment, an official allegedly said that no registration card was needed because leave to remain had been granted. The claimant relied on these events to assert a legitimate expectation. The central issue was whether the surrounding events amounted to a clear and unambiguous representation on which he was entitled to rely.

1. Application refused. The claimant was not entitled to documents confirming refugee status or indefinite leave to remain.
2. A legitimate expectation could arise only from a clear and unambiguous representation. The relevant question was not whether one administrative entry or statement was consistent with a grant, but whether the evidence as a whole conveyed that outcome with sufficient clarity.
3. The authorities in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Ram 1979 1 WLR 148 and Consuelo Hashmi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 728 were distinguishable. Ram concerned a passport wrongly stamped with indefinite leave to enter. Hashmi concerned an unequivocal written statement by the Secretary of State personally. Neither case extended to an informal view expressed by an official at an appointment arranged to replace one form of proof of asylum support with another.
4. The alleged statement was inconsistent with the refusal letter, the absence of any formal grant, the continued provision of asylum support and the warning that the support notice did not evidence an asylum decision. The official conducting the appointment lacked power to determine the asylum claim. The claimant and his solicitors also recognised the contradiction and sought clarification, so reliance was not shown.
5. Any unfairness caused by delay in lodging the appeal papers could be raised before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, which could attach appropriate weight to it. Detailed assessment was allowed for publicly funded costs.

First-instance judicial review decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.