Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
For the Respondents: Mr I Khan, Counsel instructed by Haque & Housmann Solicitors
The Secretary of State has permission to challenge a decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing on human rights grounds the appeals of the respondents (hereinafter "the claimants") against the decision of the respondent on 19 June 2017 refusing them leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The second claimant is the wife of the first claimant and her case depends on his.
The core problem in this case is that the first claimant has not been able to produce a certificate of his competence in the English language because various examination centres will not permit him to sit or, in the case of one, will not release the examination result, because he cannot produce his passport.
He knows he cannot produce his passport. It is in the care of the Secretary of State who refuses to release it.
The First-tier Tribunal Judge described this as a "Catch 22" situation. The Judge says at paragraph 17(a) of the Decision and Reasons that the Secretary of State informed the first claimant that he did not need the passport but the first claimant found that in practice, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's assurances, he did need his passport. The Judge said that the first claimant had been told:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.