The applicants were subject to removal directions following the failures of their applications for asylum had failed. The decisions were made before the Human Rights Act came into effect, but the direction orders were made afterwards. They sought to challenge the directions on Human Rights grounds.
Held: They had a right of appeal since the removal directions were decisions under the Immigration Acts being decisions affecting the applicants right to enter into or remain in the UK. The decisions exercised a discretion, and were freestanding and themselves subject to the Human Rights Act.
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Arden
Times 13-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002,  EWCA Civ 1102,  QB 933
England and Wales
See also – 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 . .
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, Human Rights
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174435