Judicial Review Denied in Sagar vs Secretary of State for the Home Department

High Court Dismisses Sagar's Judicial Review Application

The High Court, sitting in the Administrative Court, has rejected an application for judicial review submitted by Mr. Sagar against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). The case, presided over by Simon Tinkler as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, centred around the SSHD's decision to remove Mr. Sagar from the UK.

Mr. Sagar, an Indian national, had entered the UK on a visitor visa in August 2021, which expired in February 2022. Despite the expiration, he remained in the UK, becoming an overstayer. The SSHD's decision in July 2023 rejected his claim to remain in the UK, certified it as 'clearly unfounded,' and issued a notice of intended removal along with authorisation for his detention pending removal.

The claimant's legal team, led by Zainul Jafferji and Arif Rehman, argued that the SSHD failed to consider Mr. Sagar's rights under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. They claimed this oversight rendered the decisions fundamentally flawed. However, the court found that Mr. Sagar had not made a proper application under Appendix EU, and therefore, the SSHD's decision was not procedurally flawed.

The court noted that Mr. Sagar had not provided any evidence or explanation to support his claim under Appendix EU. The SSHD's representative, Paul Erdunast, argued that even if the SSHD had considered Mr. Sagar's rights under Appendix EU, the outcome would not have been different due to the lack of evidence supporting any entitlement.

Deputy Judge Tinkler concluded that Mr. Sagar's claim under Appendix EU was 'hopeless' as he did not meet the requirements, such as having been resident in the UK before 31 December 2020 or having applied for facilitation by that date. The court was bound to dismiss the application under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which mandates refusal if the outcome would likely not have been substantially different.

Additionally, Mr. Sagar's human rights claim was rejected as it was found that there would be no significant obstacles to his reintegration into India. The court determined that the SSHD had properly assessed his situation, considering his limited time in the UK and his familial and cultural ties to India.

The court also dismissed challenges to the certification of the human rights claim as 'clearly unfounded' and the subsequent removal and detention decisions. The judgment emphasised that the SSHD acted within their rights, given the circumstances of Mr. Sagar's overstaying and lack of a valid application under Appendix EU.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when making immigration claims and the challenges faced by overstayers in contesting removal decisions.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK immigration law and the implications of overstaying.