More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of State to consider afresh further representations that the applicant was entitled to refugee status. Any person resisting deportation is liable to wish to draw out the process as long as possible and will often decline to accept any adverse decision continuing to protest that he has valid grounds for being treated as a refugee and that the Secretary of State is failing to fulfil his obligations under the Convention. When is the Secretary of State entitled to say enough is enough and draw a line under the application?
Held: A distinction had to be drawn between the determination of the application which had been made and representations about that claim, and on the other hand the making of a fresh application. There was a continuing duty upon the Secretary of State to observe the Convention but there came a time when the Secretary of State, having heard the case which the applicant was making and having made such investigations as he thought proper, was entitled to come to a conclusion. The Secretary of State thereafter was not under any obligation to re-open that conclusion and need only consider further representations if they disclosed that there was some fresh basis, typically some change of circumstances, which, notwithstanding the earlier determination, would justify a fresh application and a conclusion on that fresh application that the applicant should have refugee status.
Sir Thoma Bingham MR discussed what would be a fresh asylum claim: ‘The acid test must always be whether, comparing the new claim with that earlier rejected, and excluding material on which the claimant could reasonably have been expected to rely in the earlier claim, the new claim is sufficiently different from the earlier claim to admit of a realistic prospect that a favourable view could be taken of the new claim despite the unfavourable conclusion reached on the earlier claim.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Gazette 09-May-1996, [1996] QB 768, [1996] 2 All ER 901, [1996] Imm AR 370, [1996] EWCA Civ 1338, [1996] 2 WLR 490
Bailii
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ademola Onibiyo QBD 24-Jan-1996
The applicant, a Nigerian, applied for judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to revoke a deportation order. He had overstayed his limited leave. He wanted the respondent to refer new material back to the immigration authorities. The . .
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited by:
Approved – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nassir CA 11-Dec-1998
The court should not allow too much complexity in issues of whether an applicant had submitted a renewed application for asylum. The Home Secretary’s discretion had to be preserved. . .
Cited – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina (Nigatu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 9-Jul-2004
The claimant had had his asylum application and appeals rejected. His benefits were stopped. He submitted fresh matters to the respondent.
Held: The respondent was given responsibility by statute to decide fairly whether the new matters . .
Cited – Gungor, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Sep-2004
The claimant made a further claim for asylum after his first claim had failed and his appeal rejected. He claimed that as a Kurd, he would face arrest if returned to Turkey. His passport had had a false visa stamp attached.
Held: While the . .
Cited – Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 31-Jul-1997
The council as highway authority had objected to a development on the grounds of road safety. The application was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, but the Council sought to maintain its safety objection.
Held: The highway . .
Cited – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
Cited – BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others SC 26-Nov-2009
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been . .
Cited – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.87890