Immigration judicial review: which decisions can be reviewed and heads of review
Produced in partnership with Philip Turpin of Turpin & Miller LLP and Ellis Wilford of Lamb Building
Immigration judicial review: which decisions can be reviewed and heads of review

The following Immigration guidance note Produced in partnership with Philip Turpin of Turpin & Miller LLP and Ellis Wilford of Lamb Building provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Immigration judicial review: which decisions can be reviewed and heads of review
  • Proportionality
  • Fairness
  • Remedies and legal framework
  • Requirement to have exhausted other remedies
  • Common examples of judicial reviews of immigration decisions
  • Materiality
  • Damages

In principle the lawfulness of any administrative decision relating to an individual’s immigration status or nationality may be susceptible to challenge on established public law grounds via judicial review (JR) where no alternative remedy exists.

JR is the process whereby the judges of the Administrative Court (which sits within the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice), and since 1 November 2013, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT), exercise jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts or omissions of public bodies and a supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts and tribunals. In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, Lord Diplock observed that: ‘Judicial review… provides the means by which judicial control of administrative action is exercised.’

Acts or omissions will be unlawful and open to review if they fall under one of the available grounds of JR:

  1. illegality, where there was an error of law in the making of the decision—one example is where the decision maker did not have the power to make the decision (ie the decision was ultra vires), but this ground also includes unlawful delegation and the fettering of discretion

  2. failure to have regard of a statutory duty—this is a question of substance and does not require the decision to make explicit reference to the statute or guidance at issue

  3. public law

Related documents: