Gunduz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1072 (23 July 2015)

Gunduz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1072 (23 July 2015)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the judge was entitled to find that there was no acceptance of error in the original decision, the consent order did not require reconsideration of the original claim, and the decision was made on new evidence under current policy, not on the same evidence under the old policy.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1072
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Sadik Gunduz; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (asylum/immigration Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Asylum, Indefinite Leave to Remain, Judicial Review, Consent Orders, Immigration Rules Paragraph 353, Immigration Policy Application
Immigration Law Administrative Law Asylum Indefinite Leave to Remain Judicial Review Consent Orders Immigration Rules Paragraph 353 Immigration Policy Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sadik Gunduz

Claimant/applicant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (asylum/immigration Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to indefinite leave to remain under legacy policy following a consent order and fresh representations
  2. 2 Whether the original adverse decision was erroneous and whether the same evidence was considered on reconsideration
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State applied the correct policy and rules in reconsidering the claimant's application

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the judge was entitled to find that there was no acceptance of error in the original decision, the consent order did not require reconsideration of the original claim, and the decision was made on new evidence under current policy, not on the same evidence under the old policy.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused