Case No. UKUT-00015-(IAC)

[2013] EWHC 3881 (Admin). There the claimant, a BOC without right of abode in the United Kingdom and a former citizen of Malaysia, who had renounced this status, was removed by the Secretary of State to Kuala Lumpur where, on arrival, he was refused entry and was returned to the United Kingdom. The evidence recited in the judgment appears to indicate an indeterminate state of affairs vis-à-vis the Malaysian and United Kingdom Governments. In this context, the learned deputy judge noted, inter alia , at [26]: “ …. The material before me establishes that in February 2013 Malaysia agreed that a BOC such as the claimant who was prepared to return to Malaysia voluntarily could apply for a five year residence pass (intended to lead to citizenship) before departure from the United Kingdom. This would allow him to live and work in Malaysia while his application to reacquire his citizenship was processed. ” The judgment also quotes from a Malaysian Government letter dated 15 July 2011 containing the following passage: “ With regards to the removal of BOC holders who have no right to remain in the UK, the Government of Malaysia would be in a position to accept the removal of such persons provided that they could be determined previously to be Malaysian nationals. In such cases it is of paramount importance for the UK to give ample notification as well as sufficient timeframe to the Malaysia authorities. ” I interpose: there is no evidence that (a) these arrangements do not apply to Mr Chin or that (b) any of these steps has been taken in his present case. 18. The challenge of Mr Ku was based squarely on issues of policy, including the Secretary of State’s Enforcement Instructions Guidance (“EIG”). His contention that the removal decision was not in compliance with the relevant policies was rejected: see [27] – [33]. His further challenge, based on the so-called “limbo” policy (which features nowhere in the present case) was also rejected: see [39]. 19. The decision in Lu is of some three years vintage. It is based on a series of policy materials (letters et al ) predating 2013. None of these materials features in the evidence of argument in this appeal. Equally, none of them plays any expressed part in the decisions of the Secretary of State belonging to the framework of this appeal. 20. I have considered the decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in