Post
by johnjohn2000 » Thu May 21, 2015 1:35 pm
Hi I need any advice on my oral Judicial Review application due to no in or out country appeal for an offence of fraud committed in 2009.
The Court and Judge decision says as follow;
The application is adjourned to be listed for an oral hearing, on notice to the respondent (Secretary of State) as soon as possible after 29th May 2015
Reasons;
This claim has extensive grounds, a lengthy Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) and a sizeable amount of documentation, and there need to be greater focus in presentation to enable the court to assess the parties’ argument. Also
I. The standing /ability to rely on the “reply to AOS/ AMENDMENT TO GROUNDS” needs to be determined and if its contents can be relied upon what the response of the respondent is to its content (particularly as to the “fresh evidence) : and
II. The court needs to be informed whether permission to appeal has in fact been granted in Waqar (as is implied at paragraph 3.11.1 of the “reply to AOS/ amendment to grounds
In light of these matters I believe that it is appropriate to take the unusual step of adjourning the permission application into the court.
Note….
The Respondent sought the applicant’s view as to seeking an extension of time for service of he Acknowledgment of Service for her to consider the decision in Waqar.
The Applicant agreed in the following terms:-
Please find attached two letters
(from child consultant paediatrician reports and social worker) concerning the best interests of my son for your client to consider along with her global consideration of her position on the Acknowledgment of Service [AOS]. If she is able to consider my position in light of these letters when considering her position on the Waqar case, I would not oppose any application for an extension of stay to file the AOS in order to consider her position on that case, otherwise I would object.”
Accordingly, the applicant made clear that his agreement to the extension rested on consideration of those two pieces of evidence but when the AOS was filed no consideration was given to the two letters .
One example of the consultant paediatrician report…..
if father is deported : given the specific nature of son complex disorder, have “life long” detrimental consequences for the child : if this contact is broken it will have a long term impact on his emotional development and significantly alter his long term life chances;
Another example of the Social worker report……..
the applicant now “plays a key role in supporting Son mother”
“have enabled him to develop skills in dealing with [Son] challenging behaviour…….this level of respite [ spending some weekends with his father, the applicant is “essential to Mother and Son
but also goes beyond that, showing that mother will lose the “essential respite care”
The evidence establishes that mother has in the past been suicidal and the impact on her had led in the past to Son being taken from her care after she bit son on the cheek and he was placed on the Child Protection Register.
Help with this Questions
1. The reply to the acknowledgment of service is made in light of two matters which have arisen since lodging the initial grounds for judicial:-
i) the promulgation of the UT decision in R (on the application of Waqar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (statutory appeals/paragraph 353) IJR [2015] UKUT 169 (IAC), 25th March 2015 which is relied on by the Respondent in her Acknowledgment of Service served on 30th April 2015
ii) fresh evidence coming into existence which was served on the Respondent(Tsol) and UT) was it incumbent on the Respondent to take into account when formulating her Acknowledgement of Service pursuant to Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and the agreement not to object to the extension of time.
iii) what is the best way to go about get an in country appeal .... below is the way I am pursuing in my JR application
The SoS’s main response in the AoS is the assertion that none of the above would make a material difference as to whether there is a realistic prospect of an immigration judge coming to a different conclusion. That is perverse for the following reasons.
The evidence shows that the applicant could now realistically succeed under the Immigration Rules and the AoS is incorrect that he does not:-
