Facts
Fitzroy George had indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Following convictions that included drug offences, the Secretary of State made a deportation order in April 2008 on public-good grounds. George argued that removal would interfere with his family life, including his relationship with his daughter. An immigration judge allowed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to revoke the order on Article 8 grounds. The order was revoked and the Secretary of State granted him time-limited discretionary leave.
Issue
Did revocation of the deportation order automatically revive the indefinite leave to remain that George held before the order was made? His judicial review failed in the High Court, but a majority of the Court of Appeal ruled in his favour.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and reinstated the High Court’s order dismissing the judicial review claim. Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 invalidated George’s leave when the deportation order was made. Revocation under section 5(2) took effect from the point of revocation and did not undo that invalidation. Lord Hughes found that the history of the immigration rules supported this reading.
The Article 8 ruling prevented George’s removal in his circumstances. The finding that he was liable to deportation remained in place. The Secretary of State could therefore grant time-limited discretionary leave and decide afresh whether to grant indefinite leave.
Reported citations: [2014] 1 WLR 1831, [2014] WLR 1831, [2014] 3 All ER 365, [2014] WLR(D) 208
Source: Full judgment
