|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Arunothayan, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 206 (Admin) (06 February 2015)
Cite as:  EWHC 206 (Admin)
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| THE QUEEN (on the application of) THANGARAJAH ARUNOTHAYAN
|- and -
|THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Mr Moules (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 15/01/2015
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice McGowan :
i) That the Claimant had a legitimate expectation that he would be interviewed and there is therefore procedural unfairness,
ii) That the finding that he could not satisfy the "good character" test would apply to any applicant for the same geographical area of Sri Lanka and is therefore unlawful as it is discriminatory,
iii) The decision is irrational on the facts of the case and therefore unlawful,
iv) The decision is unlawful as it is inconsistent with the statutory duty imposed by s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and is not in the best interests of the Claimant's children,
v) The decision is in breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR as there is no appeal on the facts.
i) That the Claimant knew the process by which his application would be considered and that he had ample and sufficient opportunity to make submissions, and in any event he was interviewed as part of his original asylum claim,
ii) That her decision was not discriminatory as in that interview the Claimant had accepted that he had played an active role in supporting and assisting the LTTE, albeit under coercion, and that her decision was not simply based on his geographical location. She further submits that any claim of acting under duress was "vague and insubstantial",
iii) That the support provided by the Claimant for the LTTE demonstrates his not being of good character and refutes the assertion that her decision was unlawful by virtue of being irrational,
iv) That the Claimant has indefinite leave to remain and can continue to live with his children in the UK and her decision can not therefore be said to be contrary to the best interest of the children,
v) That the Claimant has adequate rights of challenge to her decision by way of Judicial Review and in any event he has no civil right to the determination of his citizenship for the purposes of engaging Article 6 ECHR.
"6 Acquisition by naturalisation.
(1)If, on an application for naturalisation as a British citizen made by a person of full age and capacity, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 for naturalisation as such a citizen under this subsection, he may, if he thinks fit, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation as such a citizen."
"55 Duty regarding the welfare of children
(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring tható
(a) the functions mentioned in subsection (2) are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom, and
(b) any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements which are made by the Secretary of State and relate to the discharge of a function mentioned in subsection
(2) are provided having regard to that need.