Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
EU Settlement Scheme course now available FREE to members
Confirmed: no right of appeal where limited instead of indefinite leave is granted
Credit: Anuj Biyani on Flickr

Confirmed: no right of appeal where limited instead of indefinite leave is granted

When someone applies for indefinite leave to remain in the UK, but is granted limited leave to remain instead, that decision does not attract a right of appeal. So held President Lane of the Upper Tribunal last year in the case of Mujahid [2020] UKUT 85 (IAC), discussed by Colin here.

In a judgment handed down on 31 March 2021, the Court of Appeal has upheld the Upper Tribunal’s finding. In summary, the reasoning is that, by granting leave to remain to Mr Mujahid, the Home Office accepted that it would be a violation of his human rights to remove him from the UK. The Home Office was not, therefore, refusing a human rights claim. And if there is no refusal of a human rights claim, then there is no right of appeal.

A different finding would have been surprising, with the immigration tribunals going to great lengths to shrink rights of appeal recently.

For what it’s worth, I do agree with Mr Mujahid’s argument that this leads to an odd result:

the stronger an applicant’s Article 8 grounds, the less likely it would be that there could be an appeal to the FTT against the refusal to grant indefinite leave to remain [paragraph 34].

Take the example of Mr X, a US national who has lived in the UK for five years as the spouse of a British citizen. After those five years, X applies for indefinite leave to remain, but misunderstands the financial requirement. The Home Office finds that the financial requirement is not met, and that there are no reasons why X couldn’t continue his family life with his British spouse in the States. The application for indefinite leave to remain is refused. That attracts a right of appeal.

Now let’s assume Mr X has two British citizen children with his wife, one of whom has severe developmental delays and would suffer enormously from a move. In this situation, the Home Office is likely to ask X to pay the Immigration Health Surcharge, and grant him limited leave instead of indefinite leave. That decision, following the logic of Mujahid, would not attract a right of appeal.

As unfair as that situation might be, it does not, in the words of the Court of Appeal, “subvert the clear meaning of the words of the Act” (section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which defines a “human rights claim”).

That said, it is important to bear in mind that, even when there is no right of appeal, appellants can judicially review a decision not to grant indefinite leave, so challenges to such decisions are still possible.

Nath Gbikpi

Nath is an immigration solicitor and Senior Caseworker at Islington Law Centre. She is also a co-convenor of the ILPA Family and Personal Migration Working Group and a trustee of JCWI. She tweets: @NathGbikpi.

X
Not yet a member?

Get unlimited access to articles, a thriving forum, free e-books, online training materials with downloadable training certificates, and much more.

Need to keep up-to-date on immigration, asylum and nationality law?

Sign up as a member from just £20 plus VAT per month

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Unlimited access to all blog posts
  • Access to our busy forum
  • Free downloads of all our ebooks
  • Hundreds of hours of training courses
Shares