The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Atif Shahzad

1. In Article 8 immigration cases is “prevention of disorder and crime” only a “legitimate aim” under Article 8(2) where there is criminal conduct involved? Is it open to a judge in an immigration case in which there is no criminal conduct involved to consider that the only or primary legitimate aim being pursued by the SSHD is “economic well-being”? In either type of case is it incumbent on the Secretary of State to have identified in her decision what legitimate aim she considers that decision to pursue? Given that there exists nearly 60 years of Strasbourg jurisprudence on Article 8, one would have thought these questions would have received definitive answers long ago, but alas not. That anyway is how we see things and is why as well we seek in this decision to provide clarification. As we shall see the particular circumstances of the case have led us to consider each of these questions and several related ones. 2. This is an appeal brought by the appellant (hereafter the Secretary of State for the Home Department abbreviated as SSHD) against a determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hindson who on 28 August 2013 dismissed the respondent’s (hereafter claimant’s) appeal under the Immigration Rules but allowed it on Article 8 grounds. The claimant’s antecedent immigration history 3. The claimant is a citizen of Pakistan who on 6 May 2008 had been granted leave to remain as a student until 1 January 2010. Prior to expiry of his leave – on 22 September 2009 to be exact - he applied for further leave to remain in the same capacity, but this was refused. He appealed and his case came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Eban. On 14 September 2009 she allowed his appeal under the Immigration Rules. Noting that the only reason the SSHD gave for refusing his application was the fact that his uncle the sponsor was not a parent, the judge decided to allow his appeal. Her reasoning was that at the relevant time the requirement for funds to be provided by a parent or legal guardian was only contained in Policy Guidance, not in the Immigration Rules. Applying the guidance set out in Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719 the judge concluded that the claimant’s appeal should be allowed because his sponsoring uncle had shown he was (i) in loco parentis ; and (ii) both willing and able to provide the requisite funds for maintenance. 4. In response, on 15 December 2010, the SSHD granted him further leave to remain until 29 February 2012. Before the end of 2010 he had obtained an MBA from the College of Technology London. On 28 February 2012, he applied for further leave to do a Diploma in Information Technology at Lincoln College, London (London International College of Management). On 19 July 2012 the SSHD wrote to him explaining that as she had made a decision to revoke the licence of the London International College of Management and in line with her own Rules and guidance, she would give him 60 days to find a new Tier 4 educational sponsor. On 14 September 2012 the claimant made a renewed application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant under the Points Based System (PBS) to pursue a Level 7 Diploma in Tourism and Hospitality Management. When this subsequent application was refused on 4 March 2013, he appealed to Judge Hindson whose determination is the subject of this appeal brought by the SSHD. 5. In the grounds of appeal before Judge Hindson, it was argued first of all that the claimant’s current position was on all fours with that which existed at the time of the previous appeal and there was no reason to go behind the findings of Judge Eban; secondly, that the SSHD should have exercised “evidential flexibility” when faced with the evidence produced showing financial support from the uncle and should have requested further evidence from the claimant. 6. Judge Hindson swiftly disposed of the “evidential flexibility” ground, correctly pointing out that there was no evidence that the uncle had become the claimant’s legal guardian and so “there would therefore have been no point in the decision-maker seeking further evidence, since no such evidence exists”. Neither party takes issue with this finding. 7. As regards the second ground, Judge Hindson was equally concise. He pointed out that, contrary to what had been argued on behalf of the claimant, his position was not on all fours with that existing before Judge Eban. Judge Hindson wrote: