Durali Tuglaci v Secretary of state for the home department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 August 1992 |
| Date | 10 August 1992 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
Immigration Appeals Tribunal
Professor D C Jackson (Vice-President) Mrs J Chatwani (Vice-President), N Kumar Esq JP
D Gray for the appellant
D Wilmott for the respondent
Cases referred to in the determination:
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Olusegun Omishore [1990] Imm AR 582.
R v An Adjudicator ex parte Chuks Joel Umeloh [1991] Imm AR 602.
Appellate authorities jurisdiction overstayer decision by Secretary of State to initiate deportation proceedings application for asylum refused no notice of appeal lodged deportation order signed removal directions issued appeal to adjudicator no alternative destination put forward appellant asserted he had intended to appeal against intention to deport whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to enquire into circumstances precedent to the issue of removal directions whether there was a valid appeal before him. Immigration Act 1971 ss. 16(1), 17(1), 19(1): Immigration Act 1988 s. 5(1).
The appellant was a citizen of Turkey, against whom the Secretary of State had signed a deportation order and whom he had directed be removed to Turkey. There was some dispute as to the circumstances in which the notice of intention to deport had been served on the appellant, while in custody. He had then claimed political asylum, and in due course that application had been refused. No notice of appeal against the intention to deport was lodged albeit it was contended that the appellant had intended to appeal. An appeal was lodged however after the deportation order had been signed, against the removal directions to Turkey.
When the appeal went before the adjudicator, no alternative destination had been put forward. The adjudicator considered that he was obliged to enquire into the circumstances surrounding the service of the notice of intention to deport the appellant, holding that if the appellant had lodged an appeal against that decision, the Secretary of State would have had no power in law to issue the removal directions. He found however that the notice of intention to deport had been validly served and no appeal had been lodged. He concluded he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against removal directions, no alternative destination having been put forward.
On appeal to the Tribunal, it reviewed the adjudicator's and its own jurisdiction.
Held
1. The adjudicator had misdirected himself in law in seeking to establish the precedent facts in relation to the issue of the notice of intention to deport.
2. Following Omishore there could be no valid appeal before him, in relation to removal directions, unless an alternative destination had been put forward by the appellant.
3. The adjudicator had confused his powers in a deportation appeal (where he had jurisdiction to enquire whether the Secretary of State had had the power to take the decision he had taken) with his very limited jurisdiction in an appeal against removal directions.
4. In the events which had happened, neither the adjudicator nor the Tribunal had a valid appeal before it.
Determination
The appellant, a citizen of Turkey, appeals against a decision of an adjudicator (Dr H H Storey) holding that he had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial