"The decision to detain was a lawful exercise of the immigration power to detain pending removal. There is nothing to suggest the Hardial Singh principles have been violated. The period of detention to date is not an unreasonable one. The defendant was entitled to assess the claimant as a person liable to abscond with insufficient close ties and no lawful basis to stay. Removal remains a realistic prospect within a reasonable time. At the date of detention, there were no outstanding applications and the claimant was and remains in possession of a valid travel document. When the claimant subsequently made his further submissions, these were dealt with by the defendant promptly. The defendant sent directions for removal to India on22 October 2016 and the only potential remaining bar to removal lies in this application for permission to judicial review. I can find nothing arguably unlawful or irrational in the other decisions complained of. There is nothing to suggest that the current correct principles of law were not applied either in relation to the application to remain outside the rules or in the certification of the application as clearly unfounded or in the consideration whether the further submissions amounted to a fresh claim. There is nothing to suggest that the defendant did not give the application careful consideration or that she came to irrational conclusions."