The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original determination which vitiated all findings of fact made by the Immigration Judge.
Held: the appeal failed. When a case was sent by the AIT to an immigration judge for reconsideration, he should normally receive the original decision from which an appeal was sought.
Judges:
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1093, Times 14-Aug-2006, [2007] 1 All ER 1033, [2007] 1 WLR 1264
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 103B, Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 31(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aissaoui Admn 1997
The IAT had remitted an appeal to be heard de novo by another adjudicator. The second adjudicator dismissed the appeal, but recorded that the determination of the first adjudicator had been on file and that he had ‘had the advantage of having . .
Cited – AH (Scope of S103A Reconsideration) Sudan IAT 19-Apr-2006
Mr Ockelton: ‘If (despite some material error of law) an issue or matter has been properly and satisfactorily dealt with in the first decision, there is no reason why further time should be spend on it in the reconsideration. Although the Tribunal . .
Cited – Gashi v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 5-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – Dritan Gashi v Secretary of State for the Home Department IAT 2001
Referring to the decsision in Aissaoui, the tribunal set out guidelines: ‘(1) As a general rule it is best practice for an adjudicator hearing an appeal de novo not to read the Determination of a previous adjudicator unless expressly invited to do . .
Cited – Feld, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v London Borough of Barnet, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicants sought housing as homeless people. After the refusal of their applications, they sought a review, and in due course a second review. That second review was conducted by the same officer who had conducted the first. The appellant . .
Cited – Regina (Gashi) v Chief Immigration Adjudicator QBD 17-Aug-2001
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the chief adjudicator refusing an appeal from a decision of the special adjudicator rejecting his asylum claim. His evidence had been rejected as inconsistent, but he claimed that this was due to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.243421
