[2025] UKUT 00090 (IAC)

Having considered whether to grant permission, we conclude that the Respondent did not even arguably err based on the inconsistent decisions in relation to five others. There is no evidence before us that the Respondent granted ILR to any more than five people, whose situations were comparable to the Applicant. There is also no evidence that the grants in relation to those five were anything other than in error. That does not begin to show arguable partiality or a dysfunctional system, such that the Respondent’s decision was irrational. The Respondent made errors in a small number of cases.

When the Applicant was referred to the ACRS, he had no legitimate expectation that he would be granted ILR, by virtue of those later errors. The Applicant was referred, interviewed, and swiftly informed why the referral was voided for reasons which were legally unimpeachable, and indeed actively encouraged to return home.

For the above reasons, the grounds of judicial review do not disclose public law errors in the Respondent’s decision. The Applicant’s application is refused.