AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 29 Jan 2007

The asylum claimant had said that he was a minor when his case was first considered, but to the IAT said that at the time of that hearing any error was no longer material since he had now attained 18.
Held: A court should be very reluctant to allow that an error in law affecting a hearing could be cured in this way. The claimant had lost several possible advantages through the error, including partcularly the right to an in-country appeal. The appeal was allowed because the tribunal’s decision was not according to law, and also under section 87.
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Carnwath
[2007] EWCA Civ 12, Times 02-Feb-2007
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 87
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte Anthony Pillai Francis Robinson; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Robinson CA 11-Oct-1996
The Court of Appeal could only deal with an appeal on points of law arising from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, it could only allow an appeal on points of law in respect of which the tribunal had jurisdiction, either . .
CitedMiftari v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-May-2005
The court emphasised the limited nature of the IAT’s jurisdiction under the 2002 Act, which is now restricted to considering points of law only: ‘Since the IAT now has jurisdiction to determine only points of law, it cannot put itself in the . .

Cited by:
CitedMandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.248278