Bhartiben Nathabhai Odedra, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A judicial review challenge to an immigration decision is academic where the decision has been withdrawn and superseded by a later decision which is not itself challenged. In the absence of amended grounds directed to the later decision, the claim should be dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of 2 June 2014 refusing her asylum claim and certifying it under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, together with removal directions.

After the claim was lodged, the Secretary of State cancelled the removal directions, withdrew the June decision, and issued a later decision to reconsider the applicant’s Article 8 claim, country material, and asserted inability to relocate internally as a lone woman. The applicant did not challenge that later decision or amend her grounds. She did not attend the substantive hearing and gave no explanation.

1. The judicial review claim was dismissed. The removal directions had been cancelled. The challenged decision of 2 June 2014 had also been withdrawn and superseded by the Secretary of State’s later decision.

2. The later decision had not been challenged, and the applicant had not sought to amend the grounds of claim to challenge it. Any criticism of the original decision was therefore academic.

3. The applicant’s unexplained failure to attend the hearing provided a further reason not to entertain the claim. Notice had been served on her former solicitors, and the Tribunal was satisfied as to service.

4. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of £5,244. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused because there was no arguable basis for an appeal.

• Upper Tribunal: Permission to bring judicial review was granted on 15 August 2014. The substantive claim was subsequently dismissed after the challenged decision had been withdrawn and superseded. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.