R (on the application of Jimoh) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0098

Parties

Appellant(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent(s)

Olamide Jimoh

Issue

Do the transitional arrangements of the Appellant’s policy on Discretionary Leave (the “DL Policy”), properly construed, allow her to have regard to criminality of the Respondent which preceded the grant of discretionary leave as a reason to refuse the Respondent’s application for indefinite leave to remain?

Facts

The Respondent, Mr Jimoh, is a Nigerian national who entered the United Kingdom as a child between 1989-1990. He was granted indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”) on 17 February 2001. In 2004 he was fined for possession of an offensive weapon. On 23 June 2006 he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment for possession with intent to supply Class A Drugs. After successfully challenging a deportation order, he was granted discretionary leave to remain (“DL”) on 14 October 2010, and thereafter on 10 December 2013, 2 October 2017, and 26 May 2021. The Respondent had applied for ILR in February 2013 but that application was refused. He applied again for ILR on 3 October 2023 on the basis of his long residence. The Appellant refused that application on 24 April 2024 on the grounds of the Respondent’s prior criminality. Separately, on 21 May 2024, the Appellant granted the Respondent DL until 27 May 2027. On 25 July 2024 the Respondent brought this claim for judicial review of the decision to refuse his application for ILR. The Appellant reconsidered the decision on 22 February 2025 and thereafter on 23 September 2025. She maintained her decision to refuse the application. It is that decision which is now under challenge (the “Appellant’s Decision”). The Administrative Court granted the Respondent’s claim and quashed the Appellant’s Decision. It found that the transitional arrangements in the Appellant’s DL Policy did not permit the Appellant to rely on the Respondent’s historic criminality in refusing his application for ILR. The Court of Appeal agreed with that interpretation. The Appellant now appeals to this Court.