The asylum applicant sought judicial review of interlocutory decisions of an immigration judge. The defendant said that there was a statutory procedure and that therefore that had to be followed rather than judicial review.
Held: The application could go ahead. The application raised an issue of considerable importance. secion 103A had been introduced to speed up hearings by making the decisions of immigration judges final, allowing an alternative. Here the application had not received the most anxious scrutiny it deserved, and the applicant had not received the highest standards of fairness. In such circumstances judicial review might be available.
Judges:
Waller LJ, Rix LJ, Hooper LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 131, Times 11-Apr-2007
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 103A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina on the Application of M v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 16-Dec-2004
The appellants sought judicial review of the refusal of asylum. They sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, but that had been refused. They then sought a statutory review by a judge of the Administrative division. That review . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Judicial Review
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248989
