The claimant faced removal and return to Palestine, but he said that he would not be accepted if returned. He had no ID card, birth certificate or living parents. He appealed against the decision of the IAT and now again from the Court of Appeal which said that there was no immigration decision within section 82(2) of the 2002 Act and therefore no jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no right of appeal against an immigration decision under section 82(2)(h) on the ground that the country or territory stated in the notice of the decision is not one that would satisfy the requirements of para 8(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. The issue amounted to asking whether the specifying or proposing of a particular country or territory in a notice of an immigration decision to remove an illegal entrant within the meaning of section 82(2)(h) of the 2002 Act is an integral part of the decision. However section 84 made a clear distinction between a removal decision, and removal pursuant to removal directions. The decision was for a removal from the UK, and not for a removal to any particular destination. The absence of an appeal did not mean that the respondent either would not or should not consider the actual reality of whether the appellant wold be accepted by the destination country before implementing the removal.
Judges:
Lord Saville of Newdigate, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Dyson JJSC
Citations:
[2010] UKSC 25, [2010] WLR (D) 150, [2010] 1 WLR 1639
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 82(2)(h), Immigration Act 1971, Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/658)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kariharan and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 15-Apr-2002
There is a right of appeal against removal directions under section 65 of the 1999 Act on the ground that removal would be in breach of a person’s human rights. Auld LJ was not impressed by an argument that a restrictive interpretation was necessary . .
Appeal from – MS (Palestinian Territories) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-Jan-2009
The court was asked whether under the 2002 Act it is possible to challenge by way of appeal to the AIT an immigration decision under section 82(2)(h) to remove an illegal entrant, where the ground of appeal is an allegation that removal directions . .
Cited – HH (Somalia) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Apr-2010
There is no right of appeal against directions of a ‘technical’ nature in relation to the removal, such as the specifying of a particular ship or aircraft and other detailed ‘mechanics’ of return or ‘technical’ matters . .
Cited – Hanlon v The Law Society HL 1981
The House considered the impact of the statutory charge under the 1974 Act in matrimonial proceedings.
Held: The costs in respect of which the statutory charge bit were the costs of the whole divorce proceedings and not just the financial . .
Cited – GH v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Oct-2005
. .
Cited – MS, AR and FW, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Rev 1) CA 4-Dec-2009
Sedley LJ discussed the questions arising on removal directions: ‘It is also the case that the obstacles to return are commonly an amalgam of fact, governmental practice and policy, international law and local law, often in a form which is . .
Cited – AK v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 31-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 15-Jan-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416758