R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Anjorin

Publisher	United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales)
Author	High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Publication Date	19 January 1994
Citation / Document Symbol	[1994] Imm AR 276
Cite as	R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Anjorin, [1994] Imm AR 276, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 19 January 1994, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_HC_QB,3ae6b6404.html [accessed 28 May 2023]
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT ex parte ANJORIN

Queen's Bench Division

[1994] Imm AR 276

Hearing Date: 19 January 1994

19 January 1994

Index Terms:

Illegal entrant -- student -- worked extensively in breach of condition attached to his limited leave -- concealed employment from immigration officer on re-entry to United Kingdom -- asserted erroneously he had been a full-time student -- whether leave on re-entry obtained by deception.Judicial review -- non-disclosure of material facts in application for leave to move -- whether, irrespective of the merits of the application that should incline the court to refuse leave to move.

Held:

The applicant for leave to move for judicial review of the decision by the Secretary of State that he was an illegal entrant, was a citizen of Nigeria who had had leave as a student with a condition prohibiting employment. He left the United Kingdom for a short period and when seeking re-entry concealed his employment from the immigration officer and held himself out to be a full-time student, which he had not been. When the true facts were discovered, the Secretary of State concluded he had secured leave, on re-entry, by deception and accordingly was an illegal entrant.

In his affidavit in support of his application for leave to move for judicial review, the applicant had failed to disclose material facts.

Held

1. On the facts, there had clearly been deception and the applicant had no arguable case for judicial review.

2. Even if there had been merit in the application, the failure to reveal material facts in making the application would itself justify the refusal of leave.

Counsel:

Miss J Horne-Roberts for the applicant; S Kovats for the respondent

PANEL: Auld J

Judgment One:

AULD J: This applicant seeks to challenge a decision that he entered this country illegally on 18 March 1993. He was, on 15 November 1990, given limited leave to remain as a student on condition that he did not work. That leave was extended from time to time. Contrary to the condition, he worked for substantial periods of his time here on a full-time or nearly full-time basis for a number of companies. It is quite clear that he derived a substantial part of his income from his employment which was supplemented by his wife's earnings and some contributions from his sponsors in his home country.

On 25 February 1993 he went back to his home country for his father's funeral, returning here on 18 March 1993. He had then to seek fresh leave to enter, his previous leave having expired on his departure. He did so, in part, in reliance upon the visa that he held supporting his claim to be a full-time student in this country.

From the notes on the landing card it is clear that he was asked a number of questions relevant to his status in this country. He was asked upon what basis he sought to return. He said that he was a student and named the college. He said that he was taking examinations in December 1993. He produced a letter to the effect that he was a full-time student and that his fees were paid in full by his sponsoring company at home. He was asked about employment, and said that he worked for Bulloff Nigeria Limited, who were commodity merchants and exporters.

It is clear from those notes that he was asked the relevant questions by the immigration officer as to his work and student status, and that his answers were that he was a full-time student maintained by sponsorship. The truth was of course quite different. He was far from being a full-time student and had not been so since limited leave to enter was first given to him in late 1990. He did not disclose the true position. Indeed by the answers he gave, he positively misrepresented it.

When he was interviewed on 13 April 1993 about these matters it is apparent from his answers, which were evasive on this as on many other matters, that he had not been near the college to attend any form of classes since his departure for his father's funeral in February 1993. That is of a piece with the false impression that he gave to the immigration officer on 18 March 1993 that he was a full-time student when he clearly was not. Looking at the notes of the interview on 13 April 1993 it is apparent that he was a man who was prepared to lie, and to lie liberally in order to overcome his difficulties.

It was only after he had been faced with the clear contradictory evidence of the interviewing officer that he was prepared to admit to the extent of his employment during the years that he had been in this country purportedly as a student subject to a condition that he should not work.

In my judgment, the applicant has no arguable case for judicial review. There is no possible chance of it being found that the Secretary of State has not demonstrated to a high degree of probability that this man deceived the immigration officer on his entry into this country on 18 March 1993.

In addition, there is the matter of material non-disclosure on the application for leave to move for judicial review as it was originally presented. In the applicant's affidavit in support he gave an account of himself in which he did not reveal that he had left the country in February 1993 and had returned to it on 18 March 1993. Also, he gave an account of his means which, quite deliberately it seems to me, concealed the true extent of his employment record in this country so as to continue the misrepresentation that he had been a full-time student and not in employment here. He deposed as follows:

"I live at 41 Regent Court, Pomwall Road, London, E8 together with my wife and three children Caroline Anjorin aged 5, Samuelson Anjorin aged 4 and Helen Anjorin aged 2. My wife works as a staff nurse at the Homerton Hospital, East London, as she is permitted to do under the UK law. Her earnings and funds provided by my company from Nigeria are our source of support. We have never relied on state funds."

He did not mention there his employment record whilst he was purportedly here as a student. In my view, that is an important material non-disclosure which, on its own, would justify refusal of leave now that it has been revealed to me.

For all those reasons this application is refused.

DISPOSITION:

Application refused

SOLICITORS:

Graham Peries & Co, London E8; Treasury Solicitor