Jamar Christoff Robinson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Jamar Christoff Robinson, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Paragraph 353 continues to operate as a gateway to appeal rights under Section 82; the Secretary of State's refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim was rational and lawful given the lack of significantly different material and insufficient evidence of family life.

Parties
Applicant: Jamar Christoff Robinson; First Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Respondent: First-tier Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Deportation, Fresh Claims, Appeal Rights, Family Life Under Article 8, Best Interests of the Child
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Deportation Fresh Claims Appeal Rights Family Life Under Article 8 Best Interests of the Child

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamar Christoff Robinson

Applicant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Respondent

First-tier Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules continue to perform a gateway function to accessing appeal rights under Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended?
  2. 2 Was the refusal to accept further submissions as a fresh claim irrational and unlawful?

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 353 continues to operate as a gateway to appeal rights under Section 82; the Secretary of State's refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim was rational and lawful given the lack of significantly different material and insufficient evidence of family life.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for judicial review is refused