Judicial Review of the decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse to grant the petitioner leave to remain in the United Kingdom and to certify her claim in terms of section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002:- The petitioner, a Nigerian national, arrived in the United Kingdom as a visitor on 20 November 2004. The petitioner overstayed her visa and gave birth to a daughter on 3 October 2005. The petitioner sought asylum in 2008 and her application was refused on 30 April 2009. She thereafter sought humanitarian protection in accordance with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and discretionary leave to remain in accordance with Article 8. The Secretary of State refused these and decided that her human rights claim should be certified under section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 as "clearly unfounded". Here the petitioner sought reduction of those decisions. On behalf of the petitioner the meaning of the phrase "clearly unfounded" was considered and contrasted with the requirement in Rule 353 of the Immigration Rules that a fresh claim required to be one which had "a realistic prospect of success". It was submitted that the questions which an Immigration Judge would have to answer were:- (1) will the proposed removal be an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the appellant's right to respect for his private life? (2) if so, will such interference have consequences of such gravity as potentially to engage the operation of Article 8? (3) if so, is such interference in accordance with the law? (4) if so, is such interference necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of rights and freedom of others? (5) if so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved? Counsel for the respondent submitted that for the petitioner to succeed the Court requires to be satisfied that the Secretary of State had erred in law and there had been no such error and the petitioner required to satisfy a high threshold to engage either Article 3 or Article 8. Here the court considered whether the claim could properly be classified as "clearly unfounded" by asking the questions which an immigration judge would ask about the claim and ask itself whether on any legitimate view of the law and the facts any of those questions might be answered in the claimant's favour.