Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 326 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Blake J

Representation Raza Husain and Ronan Toal (instructed by Wilson & Co) for E.
  Raza Husain and Raggi Kotak (instructed by Turpin & Miller, Oxford) for A.
  Elisabeth Laing QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 23 May 2008

Catchwords

Immigration - Deportation - Order - In-country right of appeal - Claimants made subject of deportation orders following convictions for criminal offences - Immigration judge dismissing appeals against deportation orders - Secretary of State rejecting applications for revocation of orders - Asylum and Immigration Tribunal refusing one of claimant's right to appeal against Secretary of State's decision - Whether in-country right of appeal available - Meaning of words 'has made a claim' and 'an asylum claim, or a human rights claim' contained in legislation - Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, ss 82, 92, 96.

The Case

The words 'has made a claim', contained in s92(4)(a) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, meant that an in-country right of appeal would only exist where there was a nexus between the immigration decision which formally generated the appeal and the representations or application that the immigration decision had been responding to. The words 'an asylum claim, or a human rights claim', contained in s92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act, meant that only a first claim to asylum or a fresh claim would result in an in-country right of appeal.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.