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

A person subject to removal under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 10 need not first receive a separate decision determining a precedent fact where the respondent has sufficient evidence for removal and the essential reason has been communicated. Parliament's appeal structure may require factual disputes to be pursued through an out-of-country appeal.

The respondent has discretion whether to curtail leave or use the section 10 procedure. Where that discretion has been exercised proportionately, she need not give separate reasons for selecting one procedure rather than the other.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision of 14 December 2013 to remove him under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Removal directions initially challenged had been cancelled, and the grounds were amended by consent to challenge the removal decision itself.

Permission was granted on 14 May 2014. The applicant did not file the required skeleton argument or trial bundle, did not attend the substantive hearing, and gave no explanation for non-compliance. The issues were whether he had received sufficient particulars of the evidence for removal and whether the Secretary of State had failed to consider curtailment instead of section 10 removal.

1. Judicial review refused. The applicant had an out-of-country right of appeal. The essential reason for removal had been communicated to him, and there was no precedent fact requiring a separate prior decision.
2. The Secretary of State had adequate evidence for the decision: the applicant's employer had confirmed in interview that he was employed. The statutory appeal structure permits factual disputes to be pursued in an out-of-country appeal. The Tribunal applied the approach illustrated by Shabaz Ali [2014] EWHC 3967 (Admin) and Jan [2014] UKUT 00265 (IAC).
3. The Secretary of State possessed a discretion not to use the section 10 process. On the facts, she had exercised it and proportionately concluded that section 10 removal should be used. She was not required to give separate reasons for choosing that procedure rather than curtailing leave.
4. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of £6,098.40. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused because there was no arguable point of law capable of affecting the outcome.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Permission for judicial review was granted on 14 May 2014. At the substantive hearing, the Tribunal refused judicial review of the Secretary of State's removal decision and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.