By way of an update to this earlier posting, further to our new representations to the SSHD arguing for ILR on behalf of Ms Yusuf (as opposed to 5 years leave to remain) following Davis J's comments in the High Court decision of Yusuf and others [ 2006][ EWHC 3513 (Admin) [link to the judgment as per appended email]  we have just been informed that the SSHD has now agreed to grant Ms Yusuf ILR.
 
The basis of our new representations [Rachael Despicht from Birnberg's acting], as already argued last December before the High Court, stemmed from the severe and adverse effects of limited leave on Ms Yusuf's mental health, who was a victim of trafficking from Nigeria and a recognised refugee. As this medical evidence was obtained by us only after the SSHD's initial grant of 5 years (as we had originally assumed ILR would be granted in this case) Davis J felt he could not decide our challenge to the grant of only 5 years leave on the basis of this new evidence (see paras 76 and 127 of the judgment on the bailii website). Hence, following judgment in the case we put in new reps to the SSHD relying on the same medical evidence.
 
The very recent conclusion of this litigation, namely the grant of ILR to a refugee after the policy change in August 2005, is a recognition that in certain mental health cases the SSHD may agree to grant a recognised refugee ILR as opposed to 5 years. This is despite the fact that 'mental health' is not included by the HO in its formal categories relating to situations where it may be appropriate to grant ILR (for the categories see para 21 of the Yusuf judgement).
 
This outcome may encourage other members of the group to challenge the grant of 5 years where medical evidence attests to the adverse effects of limited 5 years' leave on a recognised refugee's mental health.
 

28/02/2007

This judgment now appears on the bailii website - it has been reported as Yusuf v SSHD [2006] EWHC (Admin) 3513
 
In all 4 cases Davis J found that the application of the 5-year policy, as distinct to the grant of ILR, was not unfair on the facts. I appeared for Yusuf, who was a victim of trafficking. The High Court judgment may be useful for other cases involving victims of torture/applicants with serious mental health illnesses (see paras 76 and 127 of the judgment) in terms of Davis J's acceptance that we could make further reps to the SSHD requesting ILR on the basis of updated medical evidence which detailed the adverse effects of limited (5 years') leave on a vulnerable individual's psychiatric condition/mental health. Promisingly, Davis J reached this finding notwithstanding the fact that this category is currently not included in the HO's current policy concerning cases where it may be appropriate to grant ILR (as set out at para 21of the judgment). We have acted upon Davis J's findings on this issue and have re-applied for ILR on the basis of the updated medical evidence - we now await a response from the SSHD as to whether Ms Yusuf will be granted ILR. Rachael Despicht from Birnberg Peirce acts for Ms Yusuf.
 
The judgment is also useful in a quite separate respect - Davis J's findings in the Kalobo case which concerned the consequences of HO error in sending out an ILR letter by mistake - see para 80 onwards of the judgment.