Duration of leave
: The application contended that the requirements of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR were such that MBT was entitled to indefinite leave to remain. In reliance upon the report of Dr Bell and the letters from Mr Fish and Ms Bracken, the applicant stated that the mental anguish arising from his precarious immigration status and previous experiences was such that only indefinite leave to remain would be appropriate. Anything less, said the application, would continue to exacerbate MBT’s conditions. 60. The representations contended that Article 3 ECHR imposed a positive obligation on the United Kingdom to grant indefinite leave to remain, based on pursuant to
- JUDGMENT
- MS (India) and MT (Tunisia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- MS (India)
- Ground 4
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Ground 7 (original ground 1)
- Ground 8 (original ground 2)
- Ground 9 (original ground 3)
- Ground 10 (original ground 4)
- RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY
- refoulement
- Agyarko
- DISCUSSION
- Current barriers to removal
- Duration of leave
- Pretty v United Kingdom
- expulsion or other measures
- Bensaid v United Kingdom
- MS (India) and MT (Tunisia)
- Jeunesse
- Kardi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Kardi
- Babar
- Razgar
- Limited leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK may be granted for a period not exceeding 30 months
- Ruhumuliza v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- KO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- KO (Nigeria)
- due regard has been given to the medical evidence that your client has provided in support his claim that the duration of leave granted may have a future adverse effect on his mental health
- GROUNDS 8 AND 9 – EQUALITY ACT 2010
- S and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- CONCLUSION