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 final. The question at issue appeared to have been decided in the cases cited. Leave was refused.
Judges:
Mr Justice Tucker
Citations:
[1997] EWHC Admin 1123
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Bawa Admn 27-Oct-1997
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 . .
Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Salem CA 19-Dec-1997
This was an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review. The issue raised was parallel to issues raised in the Rafiq case which had been heard but on which judgment was presently reserved. The case revealed a real issue of law, . .
Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Salem CA 19-Dec-1997
This was an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review. The issue raised was parallel to issues raised in the Rafiq case which had been heard but on which judgment was presently reserved. The case revealed a real issue of law, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Immigration
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.138068
