The court considered the effect of a decision letter issued by the Secretary of State but which was not sent to the applicant. Nevertheless it had the effect of stopping his benefits.
Held: The letter was clear and unambiguous; it is in no way inadequate. It puts beyond doubt the determination of the Secretary of State that this applicant did not qualify for asylum and gives clear and cogent reasons for so concluding. …. [The letter] is a sufficient record of the determination that the applicant was not entitled to asylum and had ceased to be an asylum seeker. The Benefits Agency was entitled to act accordingly.
Judges:
Potts J
Citations:
[1997] EWHC Admin 929
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte F S Salem Admn 11-Dec-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him asylum. The decision had been made and his benefits stopped, but he was not given any detail of the notice for several months.
Held: The decision did appear to have been made and . .
Cited – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Benefits
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.137874