R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Zaman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1982 |
| Date | 19 July 1982 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Woolf J
K. A. Quddus for the applicants
J. Laws for the respondent.
Practise and Procedure Tribunal Proper approach by after granting leave to appeal from adjudicator on the evidence and not on a point of law Immigration Act 1971 s 20(1): Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972.
The applicants, citizens of Bangladesh, were refused entry clearance to join Shamsul Islam in the United Kingdom as his dependent children. Their appeal against this decision was dismissed by an adjudicator. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal granted leave to appeal, on the evidence and not on a point of law, against the adjudicator's decision, but in turn dismissed the appeal. The present matter arose from an application for judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Held: The proper approach in such circumstances was for the Tribunal to consider the matter de novo on the material before it and not to restrict itself to the form of review which the Divisional Court embarked on when considering an application for judicial review. This the Tribunal had failed to do.
Woolf J. This is an application for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, which heard two appealsone by Khasruz Zaman and the other by Jogluj Zamanon the 15 October, 1981, and notified their decision on the 21 December, 1981. This raises the issue as to the proper approach of the Tribunal, when it has given leave to appeal from the decision of an adjudicator, in a case where leave was required because the appeal was one which was concerned with the evidence and did not involve a point of law.
The statutory framework for that appeal is to be found in section 20 of the Immigration Act 1971, and the Immigration Appeals Procedure Rules 1972. Section 20(1) of the Act says: Subject to any requirement of rules of procedure as to leave to appeal, any party to an appeal to an adjudicator may, if dissatisfied with his determination thereon, appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, and the Tribunal may affirm the determination or make any other determination which could have been made by the adjudicator.
It is to be noted that those words of section 20(1) are wide words. The provision is made subject to the requirement of the Rules of Procedure. However, the qualification in the Rules of Procedure is limited to matters of leave. The Rules of Procedure, it seems to me, cannot be relied upon to cut down the right of appeal which is given by section 20, save as to the question of leave. In any event, when one looks at the Rules of Procedure It does not seem to me that they do in fact cut down the right of appeal, though they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Others
...of appeal to arguable points of law. In support of that submission he relies upon R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Zaman & Zaman [1982] Imm AR 61 and R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Jeyaveerasingham [1976] Imm AR 137. For my part I accept that rule 14 of the Procedure Rules......
-
R v IAT ex parte Balendran
...[1973] 1 All ER 90. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Sandal [1981] Imm AR 95. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Zaman [1982] Imm AR 61. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Siggins [1985] Imm AR 14. R v Hillingdon London Borough Council ex parte PuhlhoferELRUNK [1986] AC ......
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Susikanth
...Appeals Committee ex parte RossiELRUNK [1956] 1 QB 682: [1956] 1 All ER 670. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Zaman and anr [1982] Imm AR 61. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Ross Wayne Jones [1986] Imm AR 496. Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shahib Al-MehdawiEL......
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Aziz
...to in the judgment: Ladd v MarshallWLRUNK [1954] 1 WLR 1489: [1954] 3 All ER 745. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Zaman and anr [1982] Imm AR 61. Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 97. Borrisov v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996]......