Appeals law cases

Right of appeal

MA (Somalia) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 4 – no appeal from specifying removal directions

BA (Nigeria) v SSHD [2009] UKSC 7 – revocation of deportation order generates in-country appeal [post]

Abiyat and others (right of appeal) Iran [2011] UKUT 00314 (IAC) - (a) s.83 appeal lies from asylum refusal as long as a grant of leave made at some point historically, (b) there is a right of appeal against a determination on jurisdiction [post]

Date of consideration of facts

DR (ECO: post decision evidence) Morocco [2005] UKIAT 00038 – post decision facts and evidence can be relevant to the facts at the date of decision

LS (post decision evidence; direction; appealability) Gambia [2005] UKAIT 00085 – s.85(4) requires consideration of facts at date of appeal in in-country appeals

SO (Nigeria) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 76 – IDIs could not apply Immigration Rule 27 to in-country appeals, so turning 18 is relevant at in-country appeal

Odelola v SSHD [2009] UKHL 25 – in absence of transitional arrangements it is the rules at date of decision not date of application that apply, no matter how unfair [post]

SSHD v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719, [2011] All ER 1043 – in Points Based System appeals the date of assessment is the date of application not appeal [post]

Shahzad (s.85A: commencement) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 81 (IAC) – s.85A was only lawfully commenced for appeals lodged on or after 23 May 2011 [post]

Basis and scope of the appeal

Beoku-Betts v SSHD [2008] UKHL 39 - third party rights must be considered [post]

HH (Somalia) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 426 - route of return to safe area to be considered at appeal [post]

SA (section 82(2)(d): interpretation and effect) Pakistan [2007] UKAIT 00083 - the relevant section excludes the effect of s.3C otherwise it makes no sense

EN (Serbia) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 630 – the tribunal could in theory allow an appeal against secondary legislation that was unlawful [post]

AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1076 – where a s.120 notice is served any ground in s.84 can be relied on at appeal [post]

Lamichhane v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 260 – where a s.120 notice is not served only grounds relevant to the decision made can be relied on at appeal [post]

FA (Iraq) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 696 – humanitarian protection can be pleaded in an appeal under s.83

Ferrer (limited appeal grounds; Alvi) [2012] UKUT 00304 (IAC) – procedure when granting permission to appeal to Upper Tribunal

Witnesses

MD (Good reasons to consider) Pakistan [2004] UKIAT 00197 – evidence served late cannot be excluded simply for late service

MA (rule 51(4) – not oral evidence) Somalia [2007] UKAIT 00079 – oral evidence cannot be excluded at an appeal

AA (Somalia) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1040 – Devaseelan approved, a second determination is conceptually distinct to an earlier one, the earlier one is a starting point but can be departed from

Documents and evidence

A* (Pakistan) [2002] UKIAT 00439 – authenticity of documents must be established by party relying on them

RP (proof of forgery) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00086 – allegation of forgery must be proven to civil standard using evidence by he who alleges

Ishtiaq v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 386 – any evidence can be considered going to a requirement of the rules

OA (alleged forgery; section 108 procedure) Nigeria  [2007] UKIAT 00096 – guidance on exclusion of appellant in s.108 cases

Nare (evidence by electronic means) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 00443 (IAC) – guidance on arranging and relying on evidence by electronic means [post]

Directions

Ex p. Boafo [2002] EWCA Civ 44 – an allowed determination need not be accompanied by specific directions to be binding on ECO

LS (post decision evidence; direction; appealability) Gambia [2005] UKAIT 00085 – a direction under s.87 is part of the determination and can be appealed

Fairness at hearing

MNM (Surendran guidelines for Adjudicators) Kenya [2000] UKIAT 00005 – Art 6 ECHR does not apply in immigration appeals but common law requires the same standards of fairness in any event

AM (Cameroon) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 131 – behaviour of judge in refusing to countenance electronic evidence examined and criticised

SH (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 1284 – adjournments must be granted where fairness demands it [post]

Azia (proof of misconduct by judge) [2012] UKUT 00096 (IAC) - a party alleging misconduct by a judge must prove it with evidence

Kalidas (agreed facts – best practice) [2012] UKUT 00327 (IAC) – procedure for agreeing facts

Representation

FP (Iran) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 13 – a party is not always fixed with the errors of his representative

AK (Iran) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 941; [2009] Imm AR 93 – it had been an error not to adjourn where an appellant’s representative withdrew at the last minute [post]

Termination of appeals

Kanyenkiko v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 54 – an action causing statutory abandonment (e.g. s.104) has immediate effect with no further steps necessary

Shirazi v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 1562 – leaving the UK for a very short time might not trigger statutory abandonment

R (Chichvarkin) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 91 – Home Office entitled to withdraw immigration decision if for genuine reconsideration even if has effect of terminating appeal unilaterally. Obiter: FTT procedure rule 17(2) probably not ultra vires

CS (Tier 1 home regulator) United States of America [2010] UKUT 163 (IAC) – Home Office cannot withdraw immigration decision and thereby terminate appeal jn Upper Tribunal without permission

Errors for onward appeals

R (Iran) v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982 - reiteration of errors of law heads of challenge

Miftari v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 481 – appeals on errors of law are limited in extent to the grounds of appeal

PR (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 988 – nature and application of second tier appeals test [post]

JD (Congo) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 327 – nature and application of second tier appeals test [post]

Procedural issues

Mohammed (late application-First-tier Tribunal) Somalia [2013] UKUT 467 (IAC) – FTT must decide question of whether to extend time to appeal to the UT.

One response to Appeals law cases

  1. Those who make decisions to refuse appeals are very inhumane. They have separated families and caused so, so much pain and heartbreaks. They must put themselves in the shoes of other human beings.

Leave a comment