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 accepted as a ‘fresh claim’ by the Secretary of State under rule 353 of the Immigration Rules.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal failed (Baroness Hale dissenting). Any system seeking to implement a country’s obligations under the convention would involve applicants who failed initially seeking to find further grounds for a claim. The 2002 Act attempted to streamline the appeals procedure. The claimants said that section 92(4)(a) suspended any removal pending disposal of their appeal, and since no certicates had been issued by the appellant, they were entitled to remain pending the decision. The Act however made no mention of the imposition of a further impediment on an appeal of the sort argued for by the appellant namely that any appeal could be pursued only from out of the country. The 2002 Act created a complete code for such appeals, and that code did not include the requirement argued for.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Scott, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Brown
[2009] UKSC 7, [2009] 3 WLR 1253, [2009] WLR (D) 344
Times, Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
European Convention on Human Rights, Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 84 92(4)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
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. . .
Appeal from – BA (Nigeria), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (PE) (Camaroon) v Same CA 26-Feb-2009
The court was asked whether the right of appeal against the Home Office’s refusal to revoke a deportation order was exercisable from within the United Kingdom.
Held: The appeals succeeded. It was. The case presented by the Secretary of State . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
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 . .
Cited – Saleem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 13-Jun-2000
A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator’s determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Kanagasingham Kariharan and Kanagara) v Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 30-Jul-2002
The applicants were subject to removal directions following the failures of their applications for asylum had failed. The decisions were made before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the direction orders were made afterwards. They sought to . .
Cited – Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Anirah v Same Admn 23-May-2008
Both claimants applied to the defendant Secretary of State to have deportation orders made against them revoked on asylum or human rights grounds. These applications were rejected. Both had previously made asylum or human rights claims that were the . .
Cited – JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 4-Oct-2006
The Tribunal had concluded in JM (Rule 62(7); human rights unarguable) Liberia * [2006] UKAIT 00009 that a human rights claim was not justiciable on a variation of leave appeal because in such a case the appellant’s removal was not imminent, and the . .
Cited – Cakabay v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 30-Jun-1998
. .
Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
Cited by:
Cited – MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-May-2010
The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights.
Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the . .
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 . .
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, Human Rights
Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.381493