Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language in section 115 of the 2002 Act, it was held in R (L) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 WLR 1230 at paras 49 and 56-58 that a claim is clearly unfounded if it cannot on any legitimate view succeed; but if there is an ‘arguable case’ or on at least one legitimate view of the facts the claim might succeed it does not qualify for certification. This is essentially the same as the test adopted in R (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 36, [2003] 1 AC 920 in relation to the materially identical expression ‘manifestly unfounded’ in section 72(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In Yogathas it was stated by Lord Bingham of Cornhill at para 14 that the Home Secretary is entitled to certify if, after reviewing the relevant material ‘he is reasonably and conscientiously satisfied that the allegation must clearly fail’; and by Lord Hope at para 34 that the question is ‘whether the allegation is so clearly without substance that the appeal would be bound to fail’. See further, the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1605, [2004] 1 WLR 1207, per Auld LJ at para 58.’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Richards
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 379, [2006] Imm AR 417, [2006] INLR 354
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 6-Oct-2005
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Rainford, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 17-Oct-2008
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Cited – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
Cited – McKinnon, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Home Affairs Admn 31-Jul-2009
Assurances for Extradition
Extradition of the defendant was sought to the US to face allegations of hacking into defence computers there. He said this would infringe his article 3 rights, saying that he suffered Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Held: The application failed. US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.241973