CL AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Factual and Procedural Background

The Petitioner, an Argentinian national and non-visa national under Appendix V: Immigration Rules for Visitors, sought leave to enter the UK on multiple occasions. On 1 August 2013, at the Juxtaposed UK Border Force control point at Coquelles, France, she was refused entry due to discrepancies in her account and inability to verify her visitor status. On 10 May 2018, she attempted entry at Edinburgh Airport using a fraudulent Italian identification card and was refused leave to enter and removed to Spain. On 7 June 2019, she again attempted to enter the UK at Glasgow Airport with her husband, stating intentions to visit and then travel to Australia. She was refused leave to enter for failure to satisfy Border Force officers that she was a genuine visitor. Following refusal, she claimed asylum, was detained, then withdrew the claim and agreed to removal but later refused to comply with removal directions. Her asylum claim was resubmitted, and indicators of potential human trafficking were identified, leading to her release on immigration bail. The Petitioner has remained in the UK since her release. The current petition seeks reduction of the refusal decision dated 7 June 2019 and related correspondence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Border Force officers gave adequate and intelligible reasons for refusing the Petitioner leave to enter the UK on 7 June 2019.
2. Whether the decision to refuse leave was consistent with the policy set out in Appendix V: Immigration Rules for Visitors.
3. Whether reduction of the refusal decision would serve a practical purpose.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The reasons given for refusal were insufficient and did not adequately explain the basis for non-satisfaction that the Petitioner was a genuine visitor.
• Reliance on the 2013 incident was inappropriate given its age and lack of explanation as to its significance.
• The 2018 incident involving a false identity document was improperly relied upon without a proper basis to conclude the Petitioner knew the document was false.
• The refusal decision was inconsistent with Appendix V, as the only relevant grounds for refusal based on conduct (paras V3.6 or V3.9(d)) were not satisfied or relied upon.
• The decision was inconsistent with the genuine visitor requirements under para V4.2, as there was no proper basis to conclude the Petitioner was not genuine.
• Reduction of the decision would serve a practical purpose by preventing the refusal from being treated as an adverse factor in future applications.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Border Force officers provided adequate reasons given the nature of the decision and the relatively routine nature of visitor leave refusals.
• The refusal was based on the Petitioner’s failure to satisfy officers that she was a genuine visitor who would leave the UK after a short visit, due to absence of proof of onward travel and adverse immigration history.
• The decision was consistent with Appendix V, particularly paras V4.2(a) and (c), regarding genuine visitor requirements.
• Reduction of the decision would serve no practical purpose as it would not grant leave but only require reconsideration of any future application.
• Additional factors such as the Petitioner’s extended stay, unsatisfactory asylum and human trafficking history, and alleged breach of immigration bail further diminish the practical utility of reduction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the nature of the refusal decision, noting that leave to enter as a visitor is not a right and refusals generally carry less serious consequences than other immigration decisions. The court found that the reasons given were adequate and intelligible, clearly indicating that the refusal was due to the Petitioner’s failure to satisfy Border Force officers that she was a genuine visitor who would leave the UK after a short visit. This conclusion was based on a combination of factors: absence of proof of onward travel arrangements to Australia, the Petitioner’s adverse immigration history including the 2013 refusal and the 2018 attempt to enter with a forged identity document.

The court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the decision was inconsistent with Appendix V. It held that prior conduct, including the use of a forged identity document, was a relevant consideration in assessing the credibility of the Petitioner’s stated intentions. The court noted that the Petitioner bore the burden of satisfying officers that she believed the document was genuine in 2018, which she did not do. The court found no inconsistency with the genuine visitor requirements under para V4.2.

The court also addressed the practical purpose of reduction, concluding that even if the Petitioner’s grounds had been made out, reduction would likely serve no practical purpose as it would not grant leave but only require reconsideration of any future application. The unusual facts of the case, including the Petitioner’s extended stay and unsatisfactory asylum and human trafficking history, further supported this conclusion.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the petition, sustaining the respondent's third plea-in-law and repelling the Petitioner’s pleas-in-law. The decision to refuse leave to enter the UK dated 7 June 2019 and the related correspondence were upheld.

The direct effect is that the Petitioner’s refusal remains in place, and she does not obtain leave to enter the UK. No new precedent was established, and the decision may be considered in any future applications by the Petitioner. The court reserved questions relating to expenses for further consideration.