SA (Section 82(2))
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
| Judge | C M G OCKELTON,DEPUTY PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKAIT 83 |
| Date | 20 July 2007 |
Asylum And Immigration Tribunal
The Immigration Acts
Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Designated Immigration Judge Macleman
For the Appellant: Mr Byrne, of Drummond Miller
For the Respondent: Ms M MacDonald, Home Office Presenting Officer
SA (Section 82(2)(d): interpretation and effect) Pakistan
(1) In order to give s82(2)(d) of the 2002 Act any meaning at all, it has to be read in such a way as entirely to exclude the effect of s3C of the 1971 Act. (2) Subject to that, s82(2)(d) means what it says, and a person whose existing leave continues beyond the date when a variation is refused has no right of appeal against the refusal.
The claimant (to whom we refer as “the appellant”) is a national of Pakistan. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 6 April 2005, with entry clearance as a spouse. That entry clearance took effect as leave to enter granted before her arrival and expiring on 3 February 2007. During the course of that leave she made an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the victim of domestic violence. Her application was refused on 11 January 2007. The letter refusing the application noted that her leave continued until 3 February, and informed her that she had no right of appeal. Her solicitors maintained that she had a right of appeal, and that the decision made in her case was one which fell within s82(2)(d) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Mr Byrne (who appeared also before us) made similar submissions to an Immigration Judge, who rejected them, in a document entitled “Determination and Reasons”, sent to the parties on 22 March 2007, and ending with the words “I dismiss the appeal as incompetent”. The Secretary of State sought and obtained an order for reconsideration. Thus the matter comes before us.
There is an initial procedural difficulty, in that Rule 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/1230) requires the Tribunal, if there is no “relevant decision”, to give notice that it does not accept the notice of appeal and to take no further action. It follows that the Immigration Judge's view that there was no right of appeal should have led him not to dismiss the appeal but to issue the notice envisaged by Rule 9. If he had done so, there could have been no reconsideration, because s103A of the 2002 Act permits reconsideration only of the Tribunal's decision on an appeal. The Immigration Judge having, however, purported to dismiss an appeal, we are content, as were the parties before us, to accept that we have jurisdiction to look into this matter.
Section 82 of the 2002 Act provides, in subsection (1), that where an “immigration decision” is made in respect of a person, he may appeal to the Tribunal. Section 82(2) sets out the types of decision which are “immigration decisions” for these purposes. At (2)(d) we...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Saqib Zia Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Act 2002 only applies where the applicant has leave to remain at the time that the application was made: see SA (Section 82 (2) (d): interpretation and effect) Pakistan [2007] UKAIT 83. (6) The Secretary of State considers A2 and refuses it on the merits. (7) The Secretary of State is oblig......
-
Shabana Kousar and Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...and thus by reason of the terms of s.82(2)(d), no right of appeal arose: see SA (s.82(2)(d): interpretation and effect) Pakistan [2007] UKAIT 00083 and R (Khan) v SSHD [2017] 4 WLR 156 [2017] EWCA Civ 3 The Appellant in written submissions sought to say that the second application was a rev......
-
The Queen (on the application of Mohamed Ashad Mohamed Firdaws) v First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
...ceased by curtailment on 13 February 2015. The decision simply had the effect that his leave was not restored: see SA (Section 82(2)(d): Interpretation and Effect) Pakistan [2007] UKAIT 16 It is therefore also common ground that the decision was not an “immigration decision” sufficient to s......