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

A document purporting to grant indefinite leave to remain is ineffective where it was not issued through the proper departmental process, bears no authorised signature and records no genuine decision. An internal irregularity does not necessarily invalidate immigration documentation, but a forged or unauthorised document does.

An endorsement recording indefinite leave does not itself confer that status. A purported cancellation of leave cannot create an in-country right of appeal where no valid leave was ever granted. A human rights claim requires substance: facts indicating family or private life together with an assertion that removal would interfere with it.

The claimant, a Nigerian national, sought judicial review of the refusal of leave to enter as a returning resident and of directions for his removal. He relied on a letter and passport endorsement purporting to evidence indefinite leave to remain. The Home Office asserted that the letter had been fraudulently produced by a corrupt employee and that no valid grant had occurred.

The claimant argued that the decision had cancelled his indefinite leave, thereby giving him an in-country right of appeal, or alternatively that same-day removal directions were unlawful because they prevented an effective human rights claim. The court considered whether the document created valid leave, whether any cancellation generated an appeal right, and whether the removal decision was irrational.

1. Validity of the purported grant. The letter was not sent in the ordinary course of departmental business by an authorised person. It had no valid signature, the genuine stamp related to an officer in the wrong department, and there was no genuine decision granting the claimant indefinite leave. The document was therefore invalid and of no effect. The court applied the principle in R v Immigration Officer, ex parte Chan [1992] 1 WLR 541. It distinguished R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ku [1995] QB 364, where the permits had been issued by the proper department and involved irregularity rather than forgery.
2. No appeal right from purported cancellation. Since no valid indefinite leave had been granted, there was no subsisting leave to cancel. Alternatively, the decision could be read as cancelling only the passport’s No Time Limit endorsement. Such an endorsement records an earlier grant and does not itself confer indefinite leave, applying R (Hashmi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 728. Neither analysis created an in-country right of appeal.
3. Removal directions. The claimant raised no human rights claim when interviewed. Applying the substance-over-form approach in Alighanbari v Secretary of State for the Home Department and FTT [2013] EWHC 1818 (Admin), the facts disclosed no assertion that removal would interfere with family or private life. Ordering removal on the same day was within the range of reasonable and lawful decisions.
4. The claim failed on all grounds. Judicial review was refused. Costs were to be determined on written submissions if not agreed.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by His Honour Judge Stephen Davies, sitting as a High Court judge, on 14 October 2013. The Administrative Court then determined the claim at first instance and refused judicial review.