Abeer Gismallah Ahmed (Applicant/applicant) v Secretary of State for The Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 1751 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C5/2005/2110 |
| Date | 15 December 2005 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1751
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION AND APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Maurice Kay
C5/2005/2110
MR T U COORAY (instructed by NODEN & CO SOLICITORS) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Thursday, 15th December 2005
This case comes before me today in somewhat unusual circumstances. It is, in form, an application for leave to appeal a decision of an immigration judge dated 20th July 2005. He was considering the matter at the end of a rather tortuous process. The applicant had applied for asylum. The application had been rejected by the Secretary of State. There had been an unsuccessful appeal on asylum and human rights grounds to an adjudicator. There was then an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal which was successful in that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the applicant's appeal and directed that there be a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator. It is fair to say that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was singularly unimpressed by the determination of the adjudicator.
The procedure thus far all took place under the unamended provisions of the 2002 Act. However, the remitted hearing did not take place until after the coming into force of the 2004 Act and so it was conducted by an immigration judge of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. He plainly treated it as a complete rehearing and it seems that everybody accepted that that was the appropriate course. I should say that Mr Cooray, who represents the applicant today, was not involved before the immigration judge.
The immigration judge took a far more adverse view of the credibility of the applicant than had the original adjudicator and the appeal was dismissed on both asylum and human rights grounds.
The application for permission to appeal to this court was first advanced pursuant to grounds prepared by the applicant, no doubt with some assistance. It seems to me, and Mr Cooray frankly accepts, that those grounds standing alone would have no prospect whatsoever in this court. I shall not grant permission in relation to them.
What has happened since those grounds were filed is that two days ago there was lodged in the Civil Appeals Office a new bundle prepared by Mr Cooray, freshly instructed. He seeks, by way of a skeleton argument and oral submissions, to take a completely new point which is, in a sense, a jurisdictional or at least a procedural point of some novelty. It took me by surprise and Mr Cooray confirms that, so far as he is aware, it has not been taken previously either in the tribunal or in this court.
Essentially the complaint is that the immigration judge on the remitted hearing ought to have taken into account the findings of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MM and another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mind and Others intervening)
...[2006] ICR 524, CAThe following additional case, although not cited, was referred to in the skeleton arguments:Ross v Ryanair Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1751; [2005] 1 WLR 2447, CAAPPEAL from the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)By a claim form dated 5 March 2012 and subsequently ame......