in this decision-making context
, the Secretary of State was entitled to expect the second to fourth Appellants and their representatives proactively to equip her with the representations and information necessary to enable an adequate best interests assessment to be carried out or to suggest other appropriate paths of enquiry. While this analysis will not invariably apply to every context, we consider it applicable in these cases. Secondly, we find no
- Introduction
- Abdul Aziz
- Statutory Framework
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions
- content
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions Analysed
- Permission to Appeal
- GROUND 1: THE SECTION 55 ISSUE
- Khan
- Mr Khan,
- Mr Rauf,
- Mr Aziz,
- The FtT’s Approach
- context
- legal
- only
- naturalisation
- JO and Others (Section 55 Duty) Nigeria
- MK (Section 55 – Tribunal Options) Sierra Leone
- Kaur (Section 55/Public Interest Interface)
- JO Nigeria
- twofold
- MK Sierra Leone
- possibility
- Kaur
- SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- in the circumstances of this case
- in this decision-making context
- right
- duty
- Deliallisi
- Delliallisi
- nature
- GROUND 2: THE EU LAW ISSUE
- G1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Pham
- AB (Nigeria v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- their fathers
- future
- R (G1)
- GROUND 3: THE POLICY ISSUE
- Paragraph 2.5:
- Paragraph 2.6:
- Paragraph 2.7:
- Paragraphs 2.20 – 2.21:
- might
- serious
- serious organized crime
- policy
- R (Alconbury Developments) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
- What is crucial is that the policy must not fetter the exercise of the discretion.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ozminnos
- In Re McFarland
- GROUND 4: THE ARTICLE 8 ECHR ISSUE.
- GROUND 5: THE PART 5A NIAA 2002 ISSUE
- A Footnote
- OMNIBUS CONCLUSION
- Dated