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

A judicial review challenge to an immigration decision fails where the claimant’s previous limited leave had lapsed on departure under the immigration rules and the claimant’s return application fell outside those rules. A decision refusing leave to enter is lawful where, on the facts before the immigration officer, it was rational and inevitable. A claim based on the mistaken premise that existing leave was revoked cannot succeed.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom on 10 January 2007. She had previously held leave to remain for private medical treatment, but that leave lapsed when she left the United Kingdom because it was for six months or less. On her return from Namibia, she sought leave for continuing medical treatment and education, in circumstances falling outside the immigration rules. Permission had been granted on the mistaken basis that leave extending to May 2007 had been revoked. The central issue was whether the immigration officer’s decision was unlawful.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The claimant did not attend and did not actively pursue the application.
2. The claimant’s leave to remain had not been revoked. It had lapsed under the immigration rules when she left the United Kingdom, because it had been granted for six months or less.
3. The claimant’s applications on return were for medical treatment expected to continue beyond the period permitted by the immigration rules and for education in circumstances also outside those rules. Her previous educational activities had been undertaken in breach of her existing leave.
4. The permission decision had proceeded on a misunderstanding. The acknowledgment of service, which explained the relevant circumstances, had not been before the judge when permission was granted.
5. On the facts available to the immigration officer, and as further explored on 10 January 2007, the refusal of leave to enter was rational and inevitable. The defendant was awarded costs assessed at £500.

The judgment records a prior permission decision but no appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Calvert-Smith J granted permission on 17 April 2007 on the mistaken understanding that leave to remain until May 2007 had been revoked. Burnett J dismissed the judicial review claim and ordered the claimant to pay costs of £500.