Regulation 24AA as a discretionary power
26. It is clear that regulation 24AA does not mandate the Secretary of State to certify a removal in every case in which she considers the two-pronged statutory test is made out. The language of the provision clearly imports discretion: as already noted, it provides only that “The Secretary of State may certify a removal …” 27. Mr Malik sought to submit that it was a discretionary power that could only be lawfully exercised if the decision-maker undertook a balancing of competing considerations and reached a decision as to its proportionality. We shall address that submission when dealing with the applicant’s particular case.
- JUDGE STOREY
- Kiarie, R (On the Application Of) and Another v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Kiarie and Byndloss
- The 2004 Citizens Directive
- Article 27
- Article 28
- Article 31
- The 2006 EEA Regulations
- Home Office Guidance
- The application
- The statutory appeal
- The decision under challenge
- The grant of permission
- Department
- The grounds
- Macastena
- Kiarie & Byndloss
- ANALYSIS
- udicial redress
- Suspensive effect
- The regulation 24AA test
- ground
- Regulation 24AA as a discretionary power
- Regulation 24AA as a temporary measure tied to the appeals process
- in-time appeal:
- The proportionality issue
- Kiarie & Byndloss
- The right of “defence” in person and regulation 29AA
- Meaning of Exclusion
- Right to be heard
- Ahmed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effec
- Khaled Boudjlida
- EU:C2010:146
- EU:C:2013:588
- Pecastaing v Belgium
- case
- THE APPLICANT’S CASE
- Kiarie and Byndloss
- JR (in the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Ukus
- Annex A
- Note:
- Human rights considerations and interim orders to suspend removal
- here