MM, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (effect of withdrawal section 94B) (Rev1)
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
The appellant challenges the effect of a withdrawal under section 94B of the Immigration Act.
What happened
The applicant, a Somali national who had been granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK, was later convicted of criminal offences and subject to an automatic deportation order under s.32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007. The Home Secretary subsequently withdrew the refusal of his human‑rights claim and the s.94B certification of that claim, but the deportation order remained in force. The Home Secretary later granted the applicant 30 months’ discretionary leave instead of restoring his ILR, which the applicant challenged by judicial review.
What the court decided
The Upper Tribunal held that where the SSHD, after making an automatic deportation order under s.32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007, withdraws either her refusal of a human rights claim or the s.94B certification of that claim, the deportation order continues to have effect: there is no requirement to revoke it (though she has power to do so), and the SSHD may make a fresh non-certified refusal decision. Crucially, withdrawal of the s.94B certificate or human rights decision does NOT reinstate or automatically revive indefinite leave to remain that was invalidated by the deportation order. Applying this, the Tribunal found nothing irrational or unlawful in the SSHD granting MM 30 months' discretionary leave rather than restoring his ILR, and refused the judicial review.
How the court got there
The Upper Tribunal held that the statutory framework does not require the Home Secretary to revoke a deportation order when a human‑rights refusal or a s.94B certification is withdrawn; the order continues to have effect unless expressly revoked. Consequently, withdrawal of the certification or human‑rights decision does not revive or reinstate the applicant’s ILR, and the Secretary may issue a fresh non‑certified decision. The Tribunal therefore found no irrationality or unlawfulness in granting discretionary leave rather than restoring ILR.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Immigration Act 1971
- § UK Borders Act 2007
- § Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
- R (Kiarie & Byndloss) v SSHD
- R (Guled) v SSHD
- George v SSHD
- Majera v SSHD
- Al‑Siri v SSHD
- Ijoyah v SSHD
Categories
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.