Naing & Anor, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Naing & Anor, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not under a statutory duty to consider grounds not included in the application for leave to appeal, but may do so if such grounds are obvious, have strong prospects of success, and are readily discernible (Robinson criteria). Rule 18(6) is not ultra vires. In both cases, the new grounds advanced did not satisfy the Robinson criteria, were not readily discernible, and did not have strong prospects of success. The Adjudicators' findings and the Tribunal's refusals of leave were justified and open to them on the evidence. There was no public law error.

Parties
Claimant: Ko Ko Naing; Claimant: Misal Eyaz; Defendant: Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Applications for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Asylum, Judicial Review, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Ultra Vires, Convention Rights
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Asylum Judicial Review Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness Ultra Vires +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ko Ko Naing

Claimant

Misal Eyaz

Claimant

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is required to consider grounds not raised in the application for leave to appeal under Rule 18(6) of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000
  2. 2 Whether Rule 18(6) is ultra vires the rule making power under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's refusal to consider new grounds or late grounds was unlawful or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal is not under a statutory duty to consider grounds not included in the application for leave to appeal, but may do so if such grounds are obvious, have strong prospects of success, and are readily discernible (Robinson criteria). Rule 18(6) is not ultra vires. In both cases, the new grounds advanced did not satisfy the Robinson criteria, were not readily discernible, and did not have strong prospects of success. The Adjudicators' findings and the Tribunal's refusals of leave were justified and open to them on the evidence. There was no public law error.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review refused