DM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

26 April 2024

[2024] EWHC 967 (Admin)

High Court

A child refugee sued the UK government because the rules don't let their parents join them easily, unlike adult refugees. The judge said the government's reasons for not changing the rules, even though it's bad for kids, weren't completely crazy, so the lawsuit failed.

Key Facts

•Claimant challenges the Immigration Rules' lack of family reunion provision for child refugees.
•Rules allow family reunion for adult refugees' partners and children but not for child refugees' parents or siblings.
•Claimant initially challenged the rationality of the existing rules and the Secretary of State's inaction.
•The court adjourned its decision on ground 3 to allow the claimant to amend his grounds to challenge the lack of active consideration for changing the rules.
•The Immigration Rules were amended in April 2023, allowing Article 8 ECHR applications under the Rules.
•The claimant sought amendments to challenge the 2000 decision to create the current rules, the decisions not to review them and the rules themselves.
•The Secretary of State opposed the amendment challenging the 2000 decision but consented to the others.

Legal Principles

Judicial review of the rationality of governmental decisions, including long-standing ones.

Various cases cited, including R (AK) v The Entry Clearance Office (Islamabad) [2021] EWCA Civ 1038 and R (Badmus) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 1 WLR 4609.

Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, concerning the Secretary of State's functions regarding immigration, asylum, and nationality.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, s.55

The 'Wednesbury' test of irrationality and its sliding scale of intensity, depending on the stakes.

Associated Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115.

Article 8 ECHR concerning family life and its relevance to family reunion decisions.

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8

The time limits for applying for permission to appeal under CPR 52.3(2) and 52.12(2).

CPR 52.3(2), CPR 52.12(2)

Outcomes

Permission granted for amendments clarifying the challenge to the 2000 decision and the ongoing failure to consider changes, but not the challenge to the 2000 decision itself.

The amendments clarify what was always part of the claimant's case. The court considered the challenge to the 2000 decision potentially justiciable despite its age.

Judicial review application on ground 3 dismissed.

The court found the Secretary of State's 2000 decision and subsequent decisions not to review the Immigration Rules were not irrational. There was no legal obligation to make the changes sought by the claimant, and the potential for creating perverse incentives was considered a legitimate justification.

Claimant's application to amend the order of 3 July 2023 dismissed.

The application sought relief that was either unnecessary (if the January 2024 hearing was an adjournment of the March 2023 hearing) or unlawful (if it was not).

DM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

HR & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

YMB & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Y (Failure to Clarify Immigration Status), Re

OBN (a minor), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

CAO v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland)