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.
Held: The certificate was quashed. The respondent was wrong to say that he had already made a human rights claim. Section 94 (5) (b) clearly specifies that the act of removal from the United Kingdom to the removing country is a fact which can, and does, trigger article 8 claims. So that shows that it is the consequences of removal in the United Kingdom which can be relevant. The respondent had failed to take proper account of the position of the applicant’s family involvements and the impact which his removal would have on his children, partner and on his disabled mother. The respondent must consider the claimant’s application again.
Judges:
Silber J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 2474 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(3), European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 6-Oct-2005
. .
Cited – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
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 – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Apr-2006
Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language . .
Cited – WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-2006
The court considered the proper role of the Secretary of state and of the court when failed asylum seekers produced new material arguing that it was a fresh claim. Buxton LJ said: ‘has the Secretary of State asked himself the correct question? The . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – Maslov v Austria ECHR 22-Mar-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Immigration
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.277015