[2024] UKUT 00236 (IAC)

In summary, the Applicant’s case under ground three is that the matters already raised in the first two grounds of challenge, even if not successful, are relevant to the exercise of discretion in this case and have not been properly taken into account by the Respondent. In response, the Respondent relies on his position in relation to the first two grounds of challenge and submitted that for the same reasons, this final ground of challenge should fail. We did not hear any detailed oral argument on this final ground from either side.

We do not consider that this final ground of challenge adds anything of substance to the previous two grounds and must fail for substantively the same reasons. Whilst Ms Knorr submitted that the claim could still succeed on common law grounds even without any finding of unlawful discrimination or breach of Article 8, there were no detailed submissions on specific grounds of failure to take particular matters into account (beyond a reference back to the matters contained in earlier grounds) or on rationality grounds. Although this is a case in which, on the facts, an exercise of discretion in favour of granting the Applicant entry clearance outside of the Immigration Rules could well have been made taking into account all of the circumstances, we do not find any public law errors in the refusal to do so. The decision letters contain sufficient reference to all relevant material with an explanation as to why they are not cumulatively sufficient for the exercise of discretion. That is a conclusion on the basis of information before the Respondent that he was rationally entitled to reach, particularly in circumstances where there is no unlawful discrimination and no engagement with, let alone breach of, any rights protected by the Convention.