Rasul, R (on the application of) v Asylum Support Adjudicator & Ors [2006] EWHC 435 (Admin) (24 February 2006)

Rasul, R (on the application of) v Asylum Support Adjudicator & Ors [2006] EWHC 435 (Admin) (24 February 2006)

The Asylum Support Adjudicator is not entitled to substitute its own view for the Secretary of State's opinion under regulation 3(2)(c) regarding the existence of a viable route of return; the regulation makes this a matter of policy for the Secretary of State, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the lawfulness of that opinion is judicial review, not statutory appeal. The regulations are not ultra vires in so providing.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 435 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Rasul; Defendant: Asylum Support Adjudicator and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment in the High Court, Administrative Court
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum Support, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires Challenge
Immigration Law Administrative Law Asylum Support Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires Challenge

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rasul

Claimant

Asylum Support Adjudicator and Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment in the High Court, Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Asylum Support Adjudicator (ASA) has jurisdiction to determine for itself the existence of a viable route of return under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, regulation 3(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's opinion on the viability of a route of return is subject to substantive review by the ASA or only by judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the relevant regulations are ultra vires for limiting the ASA's appellate jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Asylum Support Adjudicator is not entitled to substitute its own view for the Secretary of State's opinion under regulation 3(2)(c) regarding the existence of a viable route of return; the regulation makes this a matter of policy for the Secretary of State, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the lawfulness of that opinion is judicial review, not statutory appeal. The regulations are not ultra vires in so providing.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs, save for full assessment of the claimant's costs for public funding purposes
  • Interim relief to continue for two weeks and for the period required for a fresh application and any appeal to be determined, provided the claimant applies within 14 days