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 subject of adverse determinations and unsuccessful appeals before the deportation orders were signed. Both claimed a right of appeal with suspensive effect (that is to say an appeal from within the United Kingdom) as a result of this immigration history and the proper meaning of section 92(4)(a) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Held: Only a first claim to asylum or a fresh claim will result in an in-country appeal under section 92(4).
Judges:
Blake J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin), [2008] 4 All ER 798, [2009] Imm AR 61
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(4)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.268002