Case No. UKUT-00094-(IAC)

[1971] A.C. 610 at 625: “The general rule is that anyone who has to exercise a statutory discretion must not ‘shut his ears to an application…’” 24. Against that background, the application highlighted what it considered to be the uniquely disadvantageous situation of C6, whereby his restrictive bail conditions had placed immense constraints on his life. His situation was readily distinguishable from that of an economic migrant. In addition, C6 had previously enjoyed leave to remain and British citizenship, and his further submissions were predicated on the events surrounding the deprivation of his citizenship. As the Secretary of State had, in response to Jefford J’s grant of permission in the judicial review proceedings, agreed to compromise the applicant’s challenge to her decision to refuse to treat the applicant’s further submissions as a fresh claim under paragraph 353, “he cannot also be considered an economic migrant and he is a genuine asylum seeker”. The proceedings had lasted for more than five years which was considerably longer than a “normal asylum claim”. Although the Secretary of State had agreed to compromise the judicial review proceedings for which Jefford J had granted permission, she had not yet issued a revised decision in relation to the applicant. The global conclusions of the application may be stated simply: the applicant was in “particularly unique circumstances” that had not been considered by the Secretary of State in the November 2019 decision; it was irrational for the Secretary of State to rely on the need to maintain the distinction between economic migration and genuine asylum seekers in C6’s circumstances; and by not exercising her discretion to permit C6 to work, the Secretary of State was effectively prohibiting him from taking employment. 25. The application concluded in these terms: “37. We submit that this is at odds with the judgement of Mr Justice Ockleton [sic]. The judge did not consider the prospect of [C6] obtaining work to be fanciful and discussion has taken place during both hearings about potential jobs for [C6].” 26. By a letter dated 19 February 2020, the Secretary of State referred to the fact that a separate decision had been taken and served, on the same day, concerning C6’s asylum claim. The operative reasoning in the February 2020 decision addressing the applicant’s request for permission to work commenced in these terms: “Your client does not now have an asylum claim outstanding for more than 12 months and his fresh asylum representations and evidence have been fully considered and determined.