R (Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Subject Matter

IMMIGRATION — Leave to remain — Indefinite leave to remain — Claimant entering United Kingdom as student and subsequently obtaining further periods of limited leave to remain — Claimant having period of unlawful residence between periods of leave to remain — Home Secretary refusing claimant’s application for indefinite leave to remain on basis of lacking ten years’ continuous lawful residence — Proper effect of provisions allowing for periods of overstaying to be disregarded — Whether claimant completed ten years’ continuous lawful residence — Immigration Act 1971 (c 77), s 3C — Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (1994) (HC 395) paras 39E, 276B

[2021] EWCA Civ 1909; [2022] 4 WLR 21; [2021] WLR(D) 637, CA

IMMIGRATION — Leave to remain — Application to vary leave — Claimant applying to vary leave to remain before expiry of such leave — Claimant failing to pay immigration health surcharge when required — Secretary of State consequently required to treat application as invalid — Whether claimant’s existing leave extended until application refused — Immigration Act 1971 (c 77), s 3C — Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 (SI 2015/792), art 6

[2023] UKSC 46; [2023] 1 WLR 4593; [2024] 2 All ER 851; The Times, 22 January 2024, SC(E)

IMMIGRATION — Leave to remain — Indefinite leave to remain — Claimants applying for indefinite leave to remain on grounds of ten years’ continuous residence in United Kingdom — Claimants residing in United Kingdom for over ten years but having periods of unlawful residence between periods of lawful residence — Whether periods of unlawful residence to be disregarded — Whether disregarded period of residence counting towards ten years’ residence — Immigration Rules, paras 39E, 276B

[2023] UKSC 46; [2023] 1 WLR 4593; [2024] 2 All ER 851; The Times, 22 January 2024, SC(E)

Appellate History

Commentary

Free Movement
Court of Appeal game-changer for validity and continuous residence Case comment

Can someone who has made an invalid extension application still rely on the 14-day grace period? Case comment