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

In judicial review of a refusal of leave to remain under the Immigration Rules, the claimant must identify an error of law, including irrationality. A challenge fails where it amounts only to disagreement with the Secretary of State’s evaluative assessment.

Where the decision-maker has considered the applicant’s asserted lack of ties with the country of return, length of residence, family relationships, language, education and ability to live independently, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment merely because a different conclusion was available.

The applicant, a Jamaican national, challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE(vi) of the Immigration Rules. She had entered as a visitor in 2000 and relied on her lengthy residence, relatives in the United Kingdom, education and employment here, and asserted absence of family, social and cultural ties with Jamaica.

The Secretary of State reconsidered the matter in a supplemental decision dated 16 January 2015. The judicial-review claim was initially lodged in the Administrative Court, where permission was granted, and was subsequently transferred to the Upper Tribunal. The central issue was whether the refusal disclosed irrationality or illegality, particularly in its assessment of the applicant’s ties with Jamaica.

1. The application was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the applicant had not identified any irrationality or illegality in the Secretary of State’s decision.
2. The Secretary of State had considered the material matters relied on by the applicant. These included her time in the United Kingdom, the claim that she had no family, social or cultural ties with Jamaica, her relationships with relatives in the United Kingdom, her English language ability, education, and capacity to live independently.
3. The applicant’s submissions did not identify a specific matter with which the Secretary of State had failed to engage. Her challenge was, in substance, a disagreement with the conclusion reached on the evidence.
4. Accordingly, the refusal of leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE(vi) of the Immigration Rules was not shown to be unlawful on judicial-review grounds.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Judicial-review application dismissed.
• Administrative Court: Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by a Deputy High Court Judge. The claim was subsequently transferred to the Upper Tribunal.