CO/2870/2015 
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 743 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday, 12 January 2016
 
B e f o r e: 

PHILIP MOTT QC 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between: 
ONYEBUENYI 
Claimant

v 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
Defendant 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI 
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY 
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Claimant did not attend and was not represented
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:   The claimant is a Nigerian national who entered the UK as a student in October 2007.  His leave to remain was extended until 28 October 2013. An application by him for leave to remain was refused.  Judicial review of that decision was refused on the papers and at an oral hearing on 18 December 2013.  Permission to appeal was refused on paper and again at an oral hearing on 24 June 2015.  
2.	The current judicial review claim was started on 18 June 2015.  It comprised a challenge to the claimant's arrest on 16 March 2015 as being an action calculated to interfere with the appeal to the Court of Appeal in the other judicial review claim.  Secondly, the claimant said that he had a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman which was still outstanding, and proceedings against the Halifax Bank which were still outstanding.  Thirdly, he said that a medical condition he had made removal a breach of article 3 and article 8 of the ECHR.  Permission to bring that claim was refused on paper on 4 September 2015.  
3.	The claimant gave notice of renewal in time on 13 September 2015. Due to errors in the Administrative Court Office that was not processed and the file was closed, and the claimant was removed to Nigeria on 24 November 2015.  The renewal form sought additional relief in the form of an injunction to prevent his removal and a mandatory order to grant him at least one year's leave to remain.  
4.	The claimant has now sent an email from Nigeria seeking an adjournment of this hearing until after 15 March 2016 on medical grounds. The only evidence he provides is a short certificate from a hospital saying that he is there being treated for depression and “pyschosomatisation”, and is undergoing a 3 month psychotherapy course which will last until 15 March 2016.
5.	On the papers before me, the claimant has no arguable case but he was entitled to renew his application for permission to an oral hearing.  However, it is difficult to see how he could now attend an oral hearing.  There is no basis for ordering his return.  He could, of course, instruct lawyers to argue on his behalf but I note that he had solicitors acting for him on 13 November 2015 for the purpose of writing a letter before action in a claim relating to his treatment in custody, which is not part of this claim.  So he is quite capable of instructing lawyers and finding the funds to do so.  Alternatively, he could make written submissions.  I note that he claims qualification as a barrister and solicitor in the Supreme Court of Nigeria with a masters degree in law from the University of Wales, Swansea.  He has also been able to provide detailed written submissions relating to this application for an adjournment.
6.	There is nothing in the papers to indicate that he could not make written submissions for the hearing today.  There is no basis for granting the additional relief he requests. The injunction against removal is now academic and there is no basis for requiring his return to the UK.  A mandatory order that he should be granted leave to remain would be rarely, if ever, ordered by this court, and certainly not at this stage of the proceedings.  Accordingly, it seems to me that there is nothing in this claim from a merits point of view, and nothing that would prevent the claimant from putting forward representations on this renewal application either through solicitors or counsel or by written submissions in person.
7.	He is both intelligent and able to make his own submissions and to instruct lawyers in the UK, and I see no reason for granting any further adjournment.  Accordingly, I refuse permission on this renewed application. I also refuse the application for an adjournment.