Saimon (Cart Review: “Pending”)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr C M G Ockelton,Coker,Coker UTJ |
| Judgment Date | 25 August 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 371 (IAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Date | 25 August 2017 |
[2017] UKUT 371 IAC
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Mr C M G Ockelton, VICE PRESIDENT
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE Coker
For the Appellant: Mr T Wilding, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr P Saini, instructed by Londonium, Solicitors
Saimon ( Cart Review: “pending”)
An appeal in respect of which a Cart judicial review has quashed a refusal of permission to appeal is again “pending” within the meaning of s.104(2)(a) of the 2002 Act.
In this case the appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of 9 December 2013 to refuse to vary his leave and give directions for his removal. Judge Turquet dismissed that appeal in the First-tier Tribunal. The appellant then sought permission to appeal to this Tribunal. Permission was refused on application to the First-tier Tribunal by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ford and on reapplication to the Upper Tribunal by Upper Tribunal Judge Freeman. The appellant then brought judicial review proceedings challenging the decision of Judge Freeman. Those proceedings were successful in the sense that the High Court was persuaded that the decision of Judge Freeman should be quashed. The order of the Court is signed by the judge and sealed on 13 May 2015. Some time in August 2015 the appellant left the United Kingdom.
No further action appears to have been taken until the matter was listed before Judge Canavan in this Tribunal. Her decision is dated 12 January 2017. On that date she (a) “for the avoidance of doubt” granted permission to appeal to this Tribunal and (b) decided that the appeal had been abandoned by the appellant's departure from the United Kingdom about eighteen months previously. There is now before us an application for permission to appeal against, or for review of, that decision.
The question that arises in relation to this appeal is whether the appellant's departure from the United Kingdom caused his appeal to be abandoned. If so, then since that date the Tribunal has had no jurisdiction to deal with it.
There has been some difficulty, identified by Mr Saini, who appears for the appellant, in determining precisely which provisions of the 2002 Act as amended or as not amended, apply to this appeal. There is, in our judgment, no doubt that bearing in mind the date of the Secretary of State's decision, the un-amended provisions of s 104 of the 2002 Act (before amendment by the 2014 Act) have effect. In the Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No.3, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2014, SI 2771/2014 the whole of part V of the 2002 Act (containing sections 81 to 117) is part of the group of provisions called by art 1(2)(e) of that order the “saved provisions”. The effect of part II of the order is that the saved provisions remain in force in relation to appeals against what may be described as “old decisions” of the Secretary of State and there is, no doubt, that the decision which the appellant in this case sought to appeal was for those purposes an “old decision”. It follows that the provisions of s 104 before amendment in 2014 apply to this case. If the appellant left the United Kingdom while his appeal was pending then it is to be treated as abandoned. We should say that if the amended provisions applied it appears that the same effect would be caused by s 92(8) of the 2002 Act (as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Niaz (Niaa 2002 s. 104: Pending appeal)
...715 SR (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1375; [2016] INLR 691 Saimon (Cart Review: “pending”) [2017] UKUT 371 (IAC); [2018] Imm AR 188 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Draga [2012] EWCA Civ 842 Legislation and international instruments judic......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-11-25, [2019] UKUT 399 (IAC) (Niaz (NIAA 2002 s. 104: pending appeal))
...to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal upon section 104(2) of the 2002 Act was considered in Saimon (Cart Review: “pending”) [2017] UKUT 00371 (IAC). In that case, an appellant had brought judicial review to challenge the decision of the Upper Tribunal, refusing permission to appeal against......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-10-29, IA/01859/2016
...Act 1971 throughout, including the period during which his ultimately successful application for judicial review was pending: Saimon [2017] UKUT 371 (IAC); [2018] Imm AR 188. The appellant adduced no evidence at all to show that he had been unable to secure a sponsoring college in the UK du......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2017-08-25, [2017] UKUT 371 (IAC) (Saimon (Cart Review: “pending”))
...12pt; so-language: ar-SA } a:link { color: #0000ff } Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Saimon (Cart Review: “pending”) [2017] UKUT 00371 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 25 July 2017 ………………………………… Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE ......