The court considered the proper role of the Secretary of state and of the court when failed asylum seekers produced new material arguing that it was a fresh claim. Buxton LJ said: ‘has the Secretary of State asked himself the correct question? The question is not whether the Secretary of State himself thinks that the new claim is a good one or should succeed, but whether there is a realistic prospect of an adjudicator [now an Immigration Judge], applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, thinking that the applicant will be exposed to a real risk of persecution on return . . The Secretary of State of course can, and no doubt logically should, treat his own view of the merits as a starting point for that enquiry; but it is only a starting point in the consideration of a question that is distinctly different from the exercise of the Secretary of State making up his own mind. Second, in addressing that question, both in respect of the evaluation of the facts and in respect of the legal conclusions to be drawn from those facts, has the Secretary of State satisfied the requirements of anxious scrutiny? If the court cannot be satisfied that the answer to both questions is in the affirmative, it will have to grant an application for review of the Secretary of State’ decision’.
Buxton LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1495, [2007] Imm AR 337
Bailii
England and Wales
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 – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.245948