After asylum application files had been considered by the Asylum Directorate the papers were returned to the immigration authorities at the relevant port of entry for the holding of a further interview with each of the applicants and the handing to each of them of a reasons letter which had already been prepared by the Directorate. At the interviews the immigration officers elicited further information relevant to any decision to their entitlement to be treated as refugees. They did not serve the reasons letters; they did not tell them that they had been refused asylum; they referred the files back to the Directorate. The applicants were ultimately refused leave to enter.
Held: The initial decision of the Directorate was not final or determinative. The die was not cast once the Directorate had communicated its decision to the immigration officers and the immigration officers had no continuing role to play in providing information to the Secretary of State germane to his reaching a final determination. The Court contemplated that even a decision by the Asylum Directorate might be provisional depending upon what subsequently happened. There had been no unfairness in that case but to take a decision without having considered relevant representations would be unfair.
Judges:
Lord Donaldson MR Bingham LJ
Citations:
[1989] IAR 402
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.184245
