Alighanbari, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1818 (Admin) (01 July 2013)

Alighanbari, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1818 (Admin) (01 July 2013)

The claimant did not make a human rights claim prior to the immigration decision; therefore, he had no in-country right of appeal under s.92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act. The FTT correctly refused to entertain the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Secretary of State's certification of the human rights claim as clearly unfounded was lawful. Removal would not breach Article 8 ECHR as no substantive family life was established.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1818 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Karim Alighanbari; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Dublin II Regulation, Asylum, Article 8 ECHR, In Country Right of Appeal, Safe Third Country Certification, Constitutive Jurisdiction, Judicial Review
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Dublin II Regulation Asylum Article 8 ECHR In Country Right of Appeal Safe Third Country Certification +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karim Alighanbari

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant made a human rights claim prior to the immigration decision, entitling him to an in-country right of appeal under s.92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act
  2. 2 Whether the appeal lodged was against an appealable immigration decision
  3. 3 Whether the First Tier Tribunal had constitutive jurisdiction to entertain the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not make a human rights claim prior to the immigration decision; therefore, he had no in-country right of appeal under s.92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act. The FTT correctly refused to entertain the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Secretary of State's certification of the human rights claim as clearly unfounded was lawful. Removal would not breach Article 8 ECHR as no substantive family life was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No quashing of removal decision
  • No quashing of FTT decision