Zeqaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Section 66(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 confines an appeal against removal directions to the question whether there was power to give directions on one of the grounds specified in section 66(1). The phrase “the ground on which they were given” refers to those specified grounds.

It does not permit an appeal under section 66(2) based on an alleged defect in the destination selected under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. The distinct destination-objection provisions in sections 67 and 68 do not alter that construction.

The respondent, an ethnic Albanian from Kosovo, claimed asylum after entering the United Kingdom illegally. The Secretary of State refused the claim and issued removal directions to Albania. Albania did not fall within the permitted destinations in paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.

An adjudicator held that the invalid directions meant that no valid appeal under section 69(5) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 existed and dismissed the appeal. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed an amendment to rely on section 66(2), allowed that appeal and quashed the directions. The Secretary of State appealed. The central issue was whether section 66(2) allowed a challenge to the destination specified in removal directions.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Latham held, with Mr Justice Collins and Lord Justice Thorpe agreeing, that the Tribunal had construed section 66(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 too widely.

2. The phrase in section 66(2), “on the ground on which they were given”, refers back to the three grounds in section 66(1): removal as an illegal entrant, removal under section 10, and the specified crew-related powers. It does not extend to every legal requirement affecting the content of the directions.

3. Accordingly, an appeal under section 66(2) cannot be founded on the contention that the country specified for removal does not satisfy paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. The direction to Albania was admittedly outside the statutory destination power, but that defect did not supply a further “ground” of appeal under section 66(2).

4. Sections 67 and 68 of the 1999 Act did not support a wider construction. They concern limited classes of persons who may object to a destination requirement after refusal of entry, rather than persons asserting that no power existed to give removal directions.

5. The Tribunal therefore erred in permitting the section 66(2) amendment and allowing the appeal on that basis. Its decision could not stand.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and rejected the Tribunal’s construction of section 66(2).

• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: permitted an amendment to rely on section 66(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, allowed the appeal and quashed the removal directions.

• Adjudicator: held the directions invalid and dismissed the respondent’s section 69(5) appeal on the basis that there were no valid removal directions.