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

An immigration challenge cannot succeed merely because the applicant disagrees with the decision-maker’s evaluation of the facts. The applicant must identify an error of public law. Where the grounds disclose no such error and there is no real prospect of a successful appeal, permission should be refused.

The applicant, an Indian national, challenged the refusal of his application for indefinite leave to remain and a later claim said to be fresh. The Secretary of State concluded that the further claim raised no new points, but considered eligibility under the immigration rules and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Upper Tribunal Judge Craig refused permission for judicial review on the basis that no public-law error had been shown. The applicant renewed his application before the Court of Appeal.

Application refused.

1. The Secretary of State decided that the further claim was not a fresh claim because the points relied upon had already been raised. She nevertheless considered whether the applicant qualified for indefinite leave to remain under the immigration rules and whether return would breach his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She concluded that he was not eligible and that removal would not breach his private or family life.
2. The grounds did not identify any legal or public-law error in the Secretary of State’s decision. They amounted only to disagreement with her evaluation of the facts. That disagreement did not establish an error of public law.
3. There was no real prospect of a successful appeal. Permission was therefore refused. Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 7 February 2018, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2018] EWCA Civ 3044.
2. Upper Tribunal — On 10 March 2016, Upper Tribunal Judge Craig refused permission to apply for judicial review, finding no error of public law in the Secretary of State’s evaluation.