- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, Administrator
12 wrote:Burnett J went on to describe the approach of the court in this way against the background of the facts in that case which involved the Defendant having previously issued a passport to the Claimant which he was simply seeking to renew when, at the renewal stage, the Defendant declined to do so:
"The task of the court is the familiar one of evaluating whether the decision was one open to the Secretary of State on the information available to her, or otherwise considering conventional public law grounds of challenge. That is not to say that the fact that an individual has previously been issued with a British passport is not important in evaluating whether the decision reached was a rational one, in public law terms. It is unhelpful in this context to speak in terms of burdens of proof. The reality is that, having once been satisfied that an individual was entitled to a passport, the Secretary of State would need to advance cogent reasons that stood up to scrutiny why, on a later application, she was taking a different view. The refusal to renew the passport of someone who has enjoyed the benefits of a British passport for a decade is a serious step with serious consequences. No less would be required to satisfy a rationality test."
38 wrote:In my judgment, when considering a renewal application, the Defendant ought to exercise her discretion in accordance with the written ministerial statement, which reflects her policy and usual practice, and the cardinal public law principles of rationality, consistency and fairness. The authorities have established that the Defendant must show cogent reasons for refusal:
i) "having issued one passport, the Defendant would have to show substantial, well-founded and cogent reasons for not renewing it", per Edis J. in R (Rahman) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1146 (Admin), at [27].
ii) "The task of the court is the familiar one of evaluating whether the decision was one open to the Secretary of State on the information available to her, or otherwise considering conventional public law grounds of challenge. That is not to say that the fact that an individual has previously been issued with a British passport is not important in evaluating whether the decision reached was a rational one, in public law terms. It is unhelpful in this context to speak in terms of burdens of proof. The reality is that, having once been satisfied that an individual was entitled to a passport, the Secretary of State would need to advance cogent reasons that stood up to scrutiny why, on a later application, she was taking a different view. The refusal to renew the passport of someone who has enjoyed the benefits of a British passport for a decade is a serious step with serious consequences. No less would be required to satisfy a rationality test." per Burnett J. in R (Ali) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3379 (Admin), at [23].
Firstly, it was an error of law to place the burden of proof on the Appellants to establish [KD]'s nationality notwithstanding the prior issue of a British passport to him. Where the relevant authorities have already taken a decision recognising a particular entitlement, cogent reasons are required before a related government department comes to a different conclusion, see for example
(a) Burnett J in Ali [2012] EWHC 3379 (Admin) §23:
"... having once been satisfied that an individual was entitled to a passport, the Secretary of State would need to advance cogent reasons that stood up to scrutiny why, on a later application, she was taking a different view."
(b) Edis J in Rahman [2015] EWHC 1146 (Admin) §31:
"... for obviously sensible reasons, it requires cogent reasons to justify the refusal to renew a passport on the application of the person to whom the original passport was issued after an investigation."
How do you go about doing that? Seems better than dealing with the Home Office.Obie wrote:a declaration by the High Court, that on a balance of probability you are indeed a British Citizen.
What happens when people's birth/marriage records are missing? In a population of 65 million, plus millions claiming from abroad, this must be a serious issue that has yet to be addressed. What about people born in the UK with no birth certificate; either gone missing or were never registered. They must exist. There seems to be little to no provision for it?secret.simon wrote:Most departments have data retention policies and destroy records after a certain period of time anyway. I would not think that a 30 year old ILR document would survive this far anyway.
You can try applying for an SAR (it is only £10), but I would not hold out much hope of finding any useful information.
You may also wish to contact your local MP to see if he can intercede with the Home Office on your behalf.
To the best of my knowledge, the concept of class action lawsuits is a peculiarly US creature.FighterBoy wrote:I'm very surprised there hasn't been a massive class-action lawsuit against the Home Office for destroying record
Given that one record is issued to the parents/couple and another is kept by the GRO, the chances of both the records going missing are miniscule.FighterBoy wrote:What happens when people's birth/marriage records are missing? In a population of 65 million, plus millions claiming from abroad, this must be a serious issue that has yet to be addressed.
It is a legal requirement for a birth or death to be registered within a few weeks of occurring (between 2 to 6 weeks depending on where in the UK you are located). While such cases may still occur, again the chances of them are minuscule enough to be regarded as reasonable.FighterBoy wrote:What about people born in the UK with no birth certificate; either gone missing or were never registered.