In the High Court of Justice- Queen’s Bench Division- Administrative Court- 20/06/2014
The first Claimant ("C1") is a national of Thailand. She entered the UK in February 2003 using a false passport and thereafter remained in the UK. She formed a relationship with, and subsequently married, a British citizen, with whom she had four children, now aged, respectively, 8, 7, 5 and 4. The children are British citizens and are also Claimants in these proceedings. Following the incidence of domestic violence C1 in 2011 ended her relationship with the children's father.
C1 sought to regularise her immigration status. C1 applied for leave to remain on 7 November 2012.
C1's application did not state that she required recourse to public funds. C1 was not in receipt of public funds when she made the application in November 2012. Nor was she permitted to work. It appears that she was solely responsible for caring for all four of her British children on a daily basis. The evidence submitted by C1 in support of her application did not suggest that the Claimants were destitute or that there were any particular concerns relating to the welfare of C1's children. There was nothing in C1's application to suggest that the means by which she then supported her children would become unavailable to her once her application was granted.
The Honourable Justice Kenneth Parker rejected the claims that: (1) it was unlawful to grant C1 LTR rather than ILR; and (2) it was in principle (and also in the circumstances of her individual case, on the basis of evidence so far provided by C1in her application and in the course of these proceedings), unlawful to make the grant of LTR subject to a condition that she should not have recourse to public funds.
The claim was therefore, dismissed.