Rai, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to apply for judicial review should be refused where the claimant shows no arguable public-law error in decisions concerning immigration detention, refusal of leave outside the Immigration Rules, certification of a human-rights claim, or rejection of further representations as a fresh claim. A detention challenge requires an arguable basis for concluding that the statutory power was unlawfully exercised or that the applicable detention principles were breached. Careful consideration of relevant medical and personal circumstances, together with a realistic prospect of removal, may defeat such a challenge.

The claimant, an Indian national, sought judicial review of his detention and decisions refusing leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules, certifying his human-rights claim as clearly unfounded, and rejecting further representations as fresh claims. Permission had been refused on the papers by King J. The claimant renewed his application and relied on extensive documentation, contending that the decisions were based on false, unreasonable and unlawful facts. The central issue was whether any of the challenged decisions disclosed an arguable ground of unlawfulness, irrationality or other public-law error.

1. Permission refused. The court entirely agreed with the reasons given by King J.
2. At the relevant date the claimant had no legal basis to remain in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State was therefore entitled to exercise the statutory immigration power to detain him pending removal.
3. There was no arguable breach of the applicable detention principles. Removal remained a realistic prospect within a reasonable time; the claimant had a valid travel document; he was liable to abscond given his insufficient close ties and lack of lawful basis to stay; and the further representations were dealt with promptly.
4. There was no arguable public-law challenge to the refusal of leave outside the Immigration Rules, the certification of the human-rights claim as clearly unfounded, or the decisions that the further representations did not amount to fresh claims. The Secretary of State had considered the claimant’s medical history and other relevant matters and had reached conclusions that were not shown to be irrational.

• High Court (Administrative Court): King J refused permission on the papers. On renewal, the court refused permission and agreed with King J’s reasons.