Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2004-02-04, [2004] UKIAT 13 (NA (Certificate, Upheld no valid appeal))
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr J Freeman, Mr D J Parkes, Mrs W Jordan |
| Status | Reported |
| Date | 04 February 2004 |
| Published date | 14 February 2005 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Hearing Date | 20 January 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Certificate, Upheld no valid appeal |
| Appeal Number | [2004] UKIAT 13 |
LSH
|
Heard at Field House |
|
NA (Certificate _Upheld No Valid Appeal) Azerbaijan [2004] UKIAT 00013 |
|
On 20 January 2004 |
|
|
|
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
|
||
|
Corrected transcript of decision given at hearing Signed: 22.01.2004 Issued: 04.02.2004 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before: |
|
|
Mr J Freeman (chairman) Mr D J Parkes Mrs W Jordan
|
||
| Between | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
CLAIMANT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
|
||
|
|
|
RESPONDENT |
Miss S Haji (counsel instructed by Dozie & Co) for the claimant
Miss J Sigley for the Secretary of State
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
This is what purports to be an appeal against the decision of an adjudicator, Mr P Brenells, sitting at Taylor House on 15 May 2003. We say “purports”, because the adjudicator ended his decision by upholding the Secretary of State’s certificate. This was not the kind of certificate, with which everybody is familiar, certifying only the asylum appeal, because there had already been a human rights claim before the Secretary of State; and it is quite clear that the certificate applied to the claim as a whole. It follows that it was not caught by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Zenovics [2002] EWCA Civ 273, and it must be regarded as prima facie valid.
-
We raised this point, because it occurred to Mr Parkes, who had given permission in this case, that, on a correct view of the law, the certificate had prevented him from considering any such application at all. Miss Haji asked us to disregard the certificate, on the basis that current policy was to withdraw all certificates issued under the 1999 Act. Miss Sigley pointed out that that policy only came into operation as from June 2003; so probably did not cover the present decision, which was issued on 11 June. Certainly, there had been no withdrawal before the adjudicator.
-
While the delay and cost to public funds is regrettable, we cannot accept Ms Haji’s argument that either the legitimate expectation, such as it may have been, that an appeal would be heard by the Tribunal; or the change in Home Office policy, since the adjudicator’s decision, could possibly confer a power on us to hear such an appeal, which the statute does not give us. We are a creature of statute and cannot get our powers from any other source. It follows that there is no valid appeal before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial