Mapping immigration judicial review litigations:an empirical legal analysis

This article seeks a better understanding of immigration judicial review litigation. Three themes organise the discussion. The first is whether immigration judicial reviews as a general category possess merit. In 1999, a minister complained that the “large number of unnecessary, vexatious, and useless” immigration judicial reviews created “delay, expense, and [was] counter-productive”. More recently, the Coalition Government has stated that there is a “culture of using meritless judicial review applications to delay immigration decisions”. Such a wide-ranging statement invites scrutiny of the data to determine levels of success. A second theme is how litigation is conducted in practice. Judicial review litigation should be conducted by the parties on a co-operative basis to assist the court. Yet, the pressures upon litigants can sometimes induce other behaviours. What do such behaviours tell us about how the parties contribute to the judicial process and executive attitudes toward judicial control? A third (longstanding) theme is how judicial review operates alongside other remedies, in particular, appeals.