Alighanbari, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Alighanbari, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The claimant had not made a human rights claim prior to the immigration decision of 23 August 2011; therefore, no in-country right of appeal arose under s.92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act. The FTT was correct to decline jurisdiction. The certification of the human rights claim as clearly unfounded was lawful, and removal would not breach Article 8 ECHR.

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
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Right of Appeal, Article 8 ECHR, Dublin II Regulation, Safe Third Country, Certification of Claims, Constitutive Jurisdiction
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Right of Appeal Article 8 ECHR Dublin II Regulation Safe Third Country Certification of Claims +1 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, giving rise to an in-country right of appeal under s.92(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the First-Tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the certification of the human rights claim as clearly unfounded was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had not made a human rights claim prior to the immigration decision of 23 August 2011; therefore, no in-country right of appeal arose under s.92(4)(a) of the 2002 Act. The FTT was correct to decline jurisdiction. The certification of the human rights claim as clearly unfounded was lawful, and removal would not breach Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed