Case No. UKUT-00515-(IAC)

27. Is a “precarious” immigration status, in the context of section 117B(5) of the 2002 Act, confined to cases where the person concerned is afforded either temporary admission to the United Kingdom or a grant of leave to remain under a category which permits no expectation of any further such grant? Mr Malik submitted that the word “ precarious ” , in ordinary language, denotes something uncertain, unsafe or shaky. Pausing, I find no reason to dissent from this contention. Developing his argument, he submitted that a person’s residence is not precarious in this sense where there is valid leave to remain as a student. This (he submitted) is to be contrasted with residence pursuant to temporary admission or under a category which by its nature admits of only very limited permission to stay with no provision for further exten sion – for example, entry and sojourn pursuant to a visitor’s visa. Finally, it was argued that a “ precarious ” immigration status is, in the Strasbourg and domestic jurisprudence, generally associated with unlawful residence. 28. The primary submission of Mr Sheldon on behalf of the Secretary of State is that the “ precarious ” provision in section 117B(5) does not arise on the facts of this case. Consistent with my analysis of the determination of the FtT and associated conclusions – see above – I concur with this submission. This ground of appeal must fail accordingly. 29. I consider that Mr Malik’s submission is confounded in any event by the decision of the Upper Tribunal in AM at [19] – [33],