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

Interim relief should not compel the Secretary of State to determine complex statelessness, immigration-submission or travel-document applications within an artificially shortened period. The decision-maker is entitled to take reasonable time to investigate a substantial evidential history, particularly where previous Home Office decisions have been inconsistent and a tribunal has made serious adverse findings about identity, nationality and credibility.

An asserted employment opportunity does not, without more, justify urgent relief. Where the alleged employment depends on the claimant’s immigration documentation and the court has serious doubts about its genuineness or the employer’s knowledge of the claimant’s history, it carries little weight. The application was refused and certified totally without merit.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to determine three applications: a statelessness application, further submissions under rules 353A and 353B of the Immigration Rules, and an application for a Home Office travel document.

He also sought urgent interim relief requiring determination within 72 hours or an explanation for delay. The application was supported by an alleged conditional offer of employment from a solicitors’ firm, which required production of a Home Office travel document.

The court considered the extensive history of disputes concerning the claimant’s identity and nationality, including the extant decision of the Upper Tribunal finding that he was Olusegun Adedeji Alakija, a Nigerian citizen, rather than Leonard Ogilvy or a stateless person. The central issue was whether urgent relief should compel immediate decisions on the outstanding applications.

1. Application refused. The defendant had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond because the relevant caseworker had only recently become aware of the application, although notice had been sent to the Government Legal Department.
2. The claimant’s applications required a careful and considered assessment. The statelessness application involved a substantial evidential history and could not properly be determined quickly or lightly. The Secretary of State was entitled to take time to investigate the evidence, particularly in the light of inconsistent previous Home Office decisions, including indefinite leave to remain being granted in the name of Ogilvy despite the Upper Tribunal’s findings.
3. The same considerations applied to the travel-document application. The Secretary of State needed to consider the evidence suggesting strongly, if not overwhelmingly, that the claimant was Alakija rather than Ogilvy, together with the inconsistent significance previously attached to the travel-document code “XXX”.
4. The same approach applied to the claimant’s Article 8 application and renewed or further submissions under rules 353A and 353B of the Immigration Rules. The Secretary of State needed time to marshal the evidence and adopt a position capable of being maintained on the various issues.
5. The alleged employment offer did not justify urgent relief. The court had severe doubts about whether it was genuine. If genuine, it was unlikely to have been made with full knowledge of the claimant’s criminal history and history of giving legal advice. It therefore provided no sufficient basis for compelling immediate administrative decisions.
6. The application for interim relief was refused and certified as totally without merit.

The judgment records the extant Upper Tribunal decision of January 2020 concerning the claimant’s identity, nationality, credibility and deportation issues. That decision had not been overturned, and permission to appeal had been refused by Dingemans LJ. The present court did not determine an appeal from that decision.