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

An immigration appellate authority need not adjourn an appeal merely because related judicial review proceedings are pending where the judicial review concerns a matter outside the appeal’s issues. If success in the judicial review would make the appeal immaterial, an adjournment is especially unnecessary. An adjudicator’s additional consideration of another requirement in HC395 causes no prejudice where a separate requirement independently supports dismissal. An adjudicator cannot fairly be criticised for declining an exceptional recommendation outside the Rules when the appellant’s representatives fail to attend and provide material on that issue. Criticism of interview interpretation does not warrant intervention where the decision rests on stark discrepancies unaffected by interpretation difficulties.

This was an application for permission to appeal from Harrison J, who had dismissed judicial review proceedings concerning an Immigration Appeal Tribunal decision. The Tribunal had refused permission to appeal against an adjudicator’s dismissal of Mrs Jasim’s appeal from an entry clearance officer’s refusal of indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom as a dependent relative.

The adjudicator proceeded in the absence of Mrs Jasim and her representatives, who mistakenly believed that an adjournment had been granted pending separate judicial review proceedings. The issues included whether the adjudicator should have adjourned, whether he could rely on a requirement not considered by the entry clearance officer, whether he should have made an exceptional recommendation outside the Immigration Rules, and whether interpretation difficulties undermined the factual assessment.

Application for permission to appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Dyson held that none of the proposed grounds disclosed a real prospect of a successful appeal.

1. Adjournment. The pending judicial review challenged an alleged substantive legitimate expectation that entry would be granted. That issue fell outside the matters being determined by the adjudicator under the Immigration Rules. The adjudicator was therefore justified in proceeding. If the judicial review had succeeded, the appeal would have become immaterial.
2. Application of the Immigration Rules. The entry clearance officer had refused the application under paragraph 317(v) of HC395. Although the adjudicator additionally considered paragraph 317(iii), his decision under paragraph 317(v) was upheld and provided a sufficient basis for dismissing the appeal. Mrs Jasim consequently suffered no prejudice from the additional consideration.
3. Recommendation outside the Rules. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had correctly concluded that there was no arguable challenge to the adjudicator’s failure to make an extra-statutory recommendation. The representatives’ absence resulted from their own mistaken assumption about an adjournment. The adjudicator had no material before him on which to make a recommendation based on compassionate circumstances.
4. Interview evidence. Any difficulties arising from the use of a Palestinian interpreter did not affect the stark discrepancies between the appellant’s basic accounts given at different times. The factual conclusion was therefore open to the decision-maker.

The application was dismissed because the facts disclosed no real prospects of a successful appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Dyson dismissed the application for permission to appeal.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Harrison J dismissed the judicial review challenge to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Refused permission to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision.
• Adjudicator: Dismissed the appeal against the entry clearance officer’s refusal.
• Entry Clearance Officer: Refused the application for indefinite leave to enter as a dependent relative.