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. The respondent said that the limitation on further applications while ‘appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending’ continued so long as an appel was possible and did not refer to any existing appeal in fact made.
Held: The Court of Appeal was correct to proceed upon the basis that rule 353 applied to the further submissions that were made by ZT to the Secretary of State. In this case the Secretary was right to conclude that the claim had no prospect of success. Appeal allowed.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2009] UKHL 6, [2009] 1 WLR 348, [2009] INLR 310, [2009] 3 All ER 976
Bailii, HL, Times
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-2006
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 . .
Appeal from – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-Jan-2008
ZT applied for asylum. It was refused. On her appeal, the respondent certified that the claim was manifestly unfounded. She sought judicial review.
Held: The procedure laid down by rule 353 should have been applied to the further submissions . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Onibiyo CA 28-Mar-1996
More than one asylum claim may be made, but they must be sufficiently different to justify a second claim. The court considered when an application could be treated as having been finally determined and when it was necessary for the Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina (ZL and VL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Chancellor’s Department CA 24-Jan-2003
The applicants’ claims for asylum had been rejected as bound to fail, and under the new Act, they were to be removed from the UK. If they wanted to appeal, they they would have to do so from outside the jurisdiction. The section had been brought . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – FNG (Ap), Re Judicial Review SCS 6-Feb-2008
The focus of the test in section 94 is primarily on the quality of the claim rather than the prospects of success on an appeal. A court, in deciding whether the Secretary of State was entitled to be satisfied that a claim was clearly unfounded: . .
Cited – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Apr-2006
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Cited by:
Cited – BA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others SC 26-Nov-2009
The court was asked whether the expression ‘an asylum claim, or a human rights claim’ in section 92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act includes any second or subsequent claim that the asylum seeker may make, or only a second or subsequent claim which has been . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
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, Human Rights
Leading Case
Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.280438