The court was asked as to the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal, on an appeal against refusal of an application to vary leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971, and more particularly as to the operation of the so-called ‘one-stop’ procedures.
Held: The appeals failed. The Home Secretary did not have a duty to issue a direction for removal from the United Kingdom at the same time as refusing an application for an extension of limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The First Tier Tribunal when hearing an appeal was not limited in the matters submitted on the application, but had to consider additional later evidence. However in the cases under appeal the additional evidence was not of such weight as to disturb the result.
Mance, Kerr, Reed, Carnwath, Hughes LL
 UKSC 72,  Imm AR 456,  1 AC 651,  1 All ER 1157,  INLR 205,  3 WLR 1517, UKSC 2012/0177,  WLR(D) 450
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD
Immigration Act 1971 3, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 120, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 10, Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 47
England and Wales
Appeal from – Patel and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 1-Jun-2012
Where a first instance judge is faced with a point on which there are two previous inconsistent decisions from judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction, then the second of those decisions should be followed in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary . .
Cited – Alam and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 13-Jul-2012
Not followed – Mirza and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 23-Feb-2011
The Secretary of State’s failure to make a removal decision at the same time as, or shortly after, the decision to refuse leave to remain was unlawful. . .
Cited – AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 20-Oct-2009
An appeal to the FTT covers not only any ground before the Secretary of State when she made the decision under appeal but also any grounds raised in response to a one-stop notice issued under section 120 of the 2002 Act, even if they had not been . .
Not Followed – Sapkota and Another (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Nov-2011
In each case, the respondent had refused an application for leave to remain, but had taken no prompt steps for their removal. The applicants now said that this rendered the original decision ‘not in accordance with the law’ under section 84(1)(e) of . .
Cited – AQ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed his appeal against a decision of an Immigration Judge in turn dismissing his appeal under section 82 of the 2002 Act against the decision of . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .
Cited – Miah and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 7-Mar-2012
The applicant had been refused leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant at a time even though he was only two months short of the five years’ continuous residence necessary to support a case for indefinite leave to remain under the rules. He . .
Cited – Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of . .
Cited – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 17-Jul-2013
The Court was asked as to: ‘the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the current points-based system of immigration control.’ The appellant’s license to sponsor . .
Cited – EA (Section 85, Explained) Nigeria IAT 30-Jan-2007
New evidence admitted by the tribunal had to be ‘relevant to the decision actually made’. . .
Cited – Lekstaka, Regina (on the Application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another Admn 18-Apr-2005
Collins J said: ‘one is entitled to see, whether in all the circumstances, this case falls within the spirit of the Rules or the policies, even if not within the letter.’ . .
Cited – SB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 31-Jan-2007
A Bangladeshi woman entered into an arranged polygamous marriage in Bangladesh and many years later dishonestly (led by her husband) obtained entry clearance as a visitor before then unsuccessfully seeking leave to remain as being financially . .
Cited – Ekinci, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jun-2003
The appellant, a Turkish citizen entered illegally and claimed asylum. He falsely said he had not sought asylum in another EC country. He had lived in Germany for eight years, and had twice unsuccessfully claimed asylum. Shortly after arrangements . .
Cited – Mongoto v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-May-2005
Laws LJ referred to the argument that the applicant could derive ‘analogical support’ from the Concession, even though it did not in terms apply to him as a ‘spurious’ argument. . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Rudi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Dec-2007
Carnwath LJ said of the ‘near-miss’ argument: ‘This argument is, in my view, based on a misconception. The Secretary of State is of course entitled to have a policy. The promulgation of the policy normally creates a legitimate expectation that it . .
Cited – Mansoor, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 23-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to allow her indefinite leave to remain in the UK with her husband and family.
Held: On the facts presented, the interference with the applicant’s family life was such as to . .
Cited – Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Nov-2018
Ms R had overstayed, but resisted deportation claiming a long term relationship with a man for who she cared. Her leave was continued 11 times. A Seventh Day Adventist, the care she provided was as a friend. Indefinite leave to remain was refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.518306