CO/4223/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 606 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 
 
Thursday 28 February 2013 

B e f o r e: 

ROBERT JAY QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SHEERAZ
Claimant 
v 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT  
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Claimant appeared in person assisted by an interpreter
Mr John Jolliffe (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	DEPUTY JUDGE:  This is a renewed application for judicial review, permission having been refused on the papers by His Honour Judge Vosper QC on 30 November 2012.  He considered this case in line with the husband's case.  (The husband is Sheeraz Farook Mirza).  He believed that the case was entirely without merit and that his order should be no bar to removal without further order.  
2.	The claimant appears in person today and has the benefit of an interpreter in the language of Urdu.  
3.	The basic facts are these.  On 8 November 2006 this claimant entered the United Kingdom with her husband ("SM") and her daughter who, I have been told, was born on 4 November 2003.  There were separate asylum claims.  Each was refused.  This claimant's appeal was dismissed.  In the meantime on 18 March 2008 the claimant gave birth to her second child (another daughter).  A third daughter was born on 25 September 2009.  Unfortunately, on 9 January 2012, the claimant and SM separated.  However on inquiry from me I have ascertained that they have not been divorced, nor is there any formal decree of judicial separation.  So, strictly speaking, they are still husband and wife.  
4.	On 10 April 2012, the Secretary of State set removal directions for this claimant and ‑ if my memory is right ‑ for her husband.  Those directions were due to be given effect to on 24 April 2012.  What happened thereafter was that on 17 April 2012 the husband lodged fresh representations under Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.  Those representations were rejected by the Secretary of State on the same day.  
5.	On 20 April 2012, the claimant's then solicitors wrote to the Secretary of State asking for her case to be reconsidered, in effect, in line with her husband's representations.  It is her challenge in these judicial review proceedings that the letter of 20 April has not been considered ‑ it has not been addressed ‑ by the Secretary of State at all.  There is an additional complication because I have been told by Mr Jolliffe, acting for the Crown today, that in May 2012 further representations were lodged by this claimant seeking reconsideration by the Secretary of State under Paragraph 353.  Those further representations are nowhere to be seen in the bundle.  On 7 December 2012 the Secretary of State considered the further representations although she refers only to the letter of 20 April 2012 and not to the May 2012 letter.  The Secretary of State, in a detailed decision letter, rejected them, concluding that this was not a fresh claim and that there was no basis for this claimant to have asylum or humanitarian protection under the Secretary of State's discretionary policy.  
6.	The other background fact is that on Tuesday 26 February [2013] I granted permission in the husband's judicial review claim against the Secretary of State's decision of 17 April 2012 on the basis that it appeared to me ‑ arguably at least ‑ to be inadequately reasoned.  So the Secretary of State will now either defend the judicial review or more realistically perhaps reconsider her decision of 17 April 2012.  Those are the background facts.  
7.	When I look at the application for judicial review as presently constituted it is solely directed to the Secretary of State's then failure to consider the representations submitted on behalf of the claimant on 20 April 2012.  It is also said (paragraph 10 of the grounds) that this claimant's claim is identical to the husband's claim and that removal of this claimant should be stopped at the very least until the High Court has determined the husband's matter.  So really two points are taken.  
8.	As for the first point, the position is that the Secretary of State has now considered the further representations of 20 April 2012 and the further representations which, I have been told, were lodged in May and has rejected them in her decision letter of 7 December 2012.  It follows that the judicial review based on that ground falls away.  If there is to be a challenge to the decision of 7 December 2012 then, in my judgment, separate judicial review proceedings need to be brought against it.  And time is running out.  I will come back to that issue towards the end of my judgment.  
9.	The second point relating to the link between this claim and the husband's claim, in my judgment, involves a matter of practice and policy for the Secretary of State.  Certainly it is my understanding of the Secretary of State's policy that in a case of husband and wife who are not estranged, who are not separated, the Secretary of State will not remove the wife and any other dependants until the husband's claim has been finally determined.  That is standard practice.  There is no suggestion as it happens that that is what the Secretary of State is going to do.  I have no evidence that that is the Secretary of State's intention although I have nothing from Mr Jolliffe, acting for the Secretary of State today, one way or the other as to what the Secretary of State's current intentions are.  Unless and until the Secretary of State indicates that she is not going to follow what I understand to be her standard practice there is no basis for granting permission to apply for judicial review on that particular ground.  
10.	What the Secretary of State might say in this case but has not in fact yet said is that given that husband and wife separated on 9 January 2012 this claimant is no longer a dependant of her husband and therefore she cannot link her claim to her husband's asylum claim which has not yet been finally determined.  That may or may not be the Secretary of State's position.  As matters stand today, we do not know the Secretary of State's position.  
11.	I cannot grant permission to apply for judicial review on the basis that the Secretary of State may subsequently take the view that these parties have separated and therefore it is appropriate to attempt to remove the wife.  If the Secretary of State takes a decision along those lines, I understand from Mr Jolliffe that it would take some considerable time for procedures to be activated and concluded so as to effectuate the removal of this lady and her three daughters.  It would be at that point that this claimant would have to bring judicial review proceedings, if so advised, against the Secretary of State's decision.  We have not yet reached that point.  Therefore, on that basis, I do not grant permission to apply for judicial review.  
12.	I come back to the Secretary of State's letter of 7 December 2012.  This letter relates to this claimant's freestanding claim for asylum and humanitarian protection.  It does not in any way relate to the husband's claim.  If this claimant wants to say that there is a legal error in the Secretary of State's letter of 7 December 2012 she needs, in my judgment, to lodge fresh judicial review proceedings articulating and setting out her claim.  
13.	I fully understand that this claimant, acting in person with imperfect English, is not going to have the wherewithal or means to do that.  I strongly urge her to obtain very urgent legal advice so that a decision can be taken one way or another as to whether the decision of 7 December 2012 can be challenged in this court or not.  The time limits for applying for judicial review are clear.  I say nothing more about it since what view another court would take in relation to the position of a claimant who does not appear to have legal advice, I am not going to anticipate today.  
14.	The position is this.  I am refusing permission to apply for judicial review on the claim as currently constituted.  If the claimant wants to challenge the latest decision of 7 December 2012 she must seek to do that as soon as possible.  
15.	In the highly unlikely event that the Secretary of State seeks to remove this claimant before her husband's claim has been finally determined, there will be full opportunity for the claimant to seek to challenge the Secretary of State's action in that regard since it will hardly be instantaneous action.  It will take some time, and she would have the opportunity therefore to come back to this court in separate judicial review proceedings and challenge that.  
16.	I come back to a point I have made already.  It is not possible for Mrs Sheeraz to come to this court without legal representation and persuade the court that there are arguable grounds for proceeding.  The court will of course do its best, with the assistance of counsel for the Crown, as to whether there are arguable points.  I have concluded that there are not arguable points at the moment.  She really must seek to obtain legal advice.  I have not been given an entirely clear explanation as to why she does not have legal advice today given that solicitors were acting in the past.  That is my advice to her.  But I look at this case on the basis in which it is currently constituted, and I am completely satisfied that there are not any judicial review grounds.  
17.	I say nothing about the matters which have been urged on me by Mrs Sheeraz today and as to what the Secretary of State might seek to do with her and her family in the future.
18.	MR JOLLIFFE:  There is nothing else.
19.	DEPUTY JUDGE:  Permission is refused.  I have tried to explain what the legal position is.  I understand that it is not going to be easy for Mrs Sheeraz to understand it.  But she has the point that she must go and see lawyers as soon as possible. (Pause)
20.	(To claimant) I am going to order that the transcript be provided to you as soon as it can.  I am not formally going to order expedition because I understand the transcribers are working under considerable pressure.  As soon as it can be provided I will amend it in draft and send it back.  You will get a copy and you will see ‑ and your solicitor will see ‑  what I have said and why I said it.  My advice to you is that you do not wait to get the transcript; that will take a little bit of time.  You go and see solicitors immediately because the clock is ticking, you understand?  I am not ordering that you leave the country.  I cannot.  No judge would do that.  The fact is that you are staying here for the time being.  It is unlikely that you are going to be removed in the foreseeable future, but you must get legal advice.