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 case was not within section 84(1)(g) which conferred the relevant jurisdiction on the Tribunal.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The case was within s.84(1)(g) and that as a result the Tribunal should have concluded that it was obliged to determine the matter of the human rights claim which had been raised as a ground of appeal.
Laws LJ emphasised that the Tribunal is a creature of statute and thus possesses only the jurisdiction which statute has conferred upon it.
Judges:
Laws, Waller, Leveson LJJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1402, [2007] Imm AR 293, [2006] INLR 548
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 82 84
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – AN and NN (S.83, Asylum Grounds Only) Albania IAT 10-Dec-2007
IAT JM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1402 has no impact on the scope of s. 83. As is clear from the relevant legislation and Immigration Rules, in an appeal under s.83 of the 2002 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245909
