Hussain, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1)

Where limited leave has been varied so that six months or less remains, Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000, art 13(3) prevents art 13(2) from applying. The leave therefore lapses on departure from the Common Travel Area, even if the variation occurs after departure. The statutory language does not depend on the person’s location when the leave is curtailed. Administrative guidance cannot alter that construction. A person whose leave has lapsed is not entitled to re-enter on the basis of that leave.

The claimant, a Bangladeshi national, held leave to remain as the spouse of a British citizen. After the relationship ended, the Secretary of State lawfully curtailed his leave under para 323(ii) of the Immigration Rules and served notice while he was in Bangladesh. He returned to the United Kingdom before the stated expiry date, was refused leave to enter and detained.

The claimant argued that art 13(3) applied only where curtailment occurred before departure, and that his leave therefore remained extant. The central issue was the proper construction of art 13 of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant’s leave to remain had lapsed and he was not entitled to re-enter the United Kingdom. The associated claim for unlawful detention consequently failed.
2. The natural and ordinary meaning of art 13(2) and (3), read in their statutory context, is that art 13(3) prevents art 13(2) from applying where limited leave has been varied and six months or less remains. The provision contains no limitation based on whether the person was in the United Kingdom when the variation occurred.
3. Article 13(6)–(9), which address variation, cancellation and information where a person is outside the United Kingdom, do not displace the operation of art 13(2) and (3). The claimant’s construction would require words such as “whilst the person was in the United Kingdom” to be inserted into art 13(3), for which there was no warrant.
4. The wider statutory context supported the Secretary of State’s construction. The alternative would prevent effective curtailment of leave while a person was abroad, including in cases involving fraud, and would conflict with the purpose of the Order.
5. Home Office guidance could not alter the meaning of the statutory provision. It did not address the precise situation conclusively and was not inconsistent with leave lapsing after curtailment while the person was outside the Common Travel Area.

Not an appeal. No prior decision is stated in the judgment.