Ashraft v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1981 |
| Date | 27 February 1981 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Brandon, Donaldson, Ackner, LJJ
K S Nathan for the appellant.
Simon Brown for the respondent Tribunal.
Notice of appeal Time limit for appealing Immigration Appeal Tribunal Application may be made not later than 14 days after adjudicator's determination Whether jurisdiction in Tribunal to grant leave to appeal to it out of time Immigration Act 1971, s 20(1) Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972, (SI 1972 No 1684), rr 14, 15(2) & (4)(a), 37(e), 38.
In the judgments reported below the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of the Divisional Court and approving the latter's earlier decision in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Armstrong([1977] Imm. A.R. 80), held that the Tribunal had no power to grant an application for leave to appeal to it out of time from the determination of an adjudicator: the words of r 15(2) in Part III of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972 (SI 1972 No 1684), stating that applications to the Tribunal for leave to appealmay be made or given not later than 14 days after the determination in question conferred a privilege upon the would-be appellant and were to be construed as meaning that he might not apply later than those 14 days. Nor could failure to apply for leave within the prescribed period be regarded as an irregularity capable of cure by the Tribunal under either of rules 37(e) or 38 in Part IV1 of the Procedure Rules.
PerDonaldson LJ: The immigration appeals procedure was (so far as here material) a statutory two-stage appeal system; and it was no doubt because different considerations applied on an appeal at the first stage (generally an appeal to an adjudicator) that the procedure for that stage was dealt with in a separate part of the Procedure Rules (SI 1972 No 1684), i.e. in Part I, in which there were express provisions enabling time to be extended and generally for tempering the wind to the shorn lamb2. No such considerations applied to a second-stage appeal and, consistently, that stage was dealt with in Part III of the Procedure Rules, and r 15 in that Part contained a strict time limit, (p 39).
The facts leading to the unsuccessful application to the Tribunal made by the appellant in this case (a Pakistan citizen in this country) for leave to appeal out of time from the determination of an adjudicator are set out in the judgment of Brandon LJ.
Brandon LJ: This is an appeal by Mr Ashrafi against a decision of the Divisional Court given on 17 April 1978, refusing certain Orders for which he had asked in connection with appeals by him to the adjudicator and to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
The Divisional Court took the view that it was bound by a previous decision of its own to refuse the relief asked for, and in those circumstances the Lord Chief Justice gave a very short judgment and gave leave to appeal to this Court.
The history of the matter is set out at considerable length in the documents which are contained in the bundle before us, but for the purposes of the point which falls to be determined by this Court, it is I think only necessary to refer to a few of those facts.
The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan, having been born on 15 December 1953, so that he is a little over 27. On 27 December 1975 he married a young woman in Pakistan who was then aged 16.1 shall refer to that young woman in the rest of this judgment as the wife. That marriage was celebrated in accordance with the law of Pakistan.
The status of the wife was that she was not born in the United Kingdom, but held a British passport and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Jeyeanthan
...days which is laid down (see R v Immigration Appeal ex parte Armstrong [1977] Imm AR 80, Div. Court and Ashrafi v Immigration Appeal [1981] Imm AR 34, CA). As to time limits this approach is readily understandable because there are obvious administrative reasons why it is important that as......
-
Councillor Martin Dawkins v Bolsover District Councilthe Standards Board for England
...was considered in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex Parte Armstrong [1997] Imm AR 80 and in Ashafi v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1981] Imm AR 34. Those cases were cited with approval by Lord Woolf MR in Ex Parte Jeyeanthan. There deportation arrangements hung upon a strict timetable. ......
- R v Diggines, ex parte Rahmani
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department
...referred to in the judgments: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Armstrong [1977] Imm AR 80. Ashrafi v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1981] Imm AR 34. Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside PoliceWLR [1986] 2 WLR 144. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte SwatiWLR [1......