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

Judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Tribunal decision refusing permission to appeal requires an identifiable point of law capable of justifying intervention. Where no arguable legal error is identified and the notice of appeal is vague, permission should be refused. An adjournment may be refused where the applicant’s documents are unreadable and the applicant does not attend the requested oral hearing.

The appellant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal against an adjudicator’s determination. The tribunal and the Administrative Court, before Mr Justice Elias, identified no point of law justifying an appeal or judicial review.

The appellant sought an adjournment in the Court of Appeal but did not attend, and her documents were unreadable. The issues were whether to adjourn and whether the proposed appeal disclosed a point of law justifying permission.

1. The adjournment was refused. The appellant’s documents could not be read, and she had not attended the oral hearing she had requested before the High Court judge.
2. The adjudicator had rejected much of the appellant’s account concerning a possible trial on return to Nepal. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal identified no point of law justifying an appeal, and the Administrative Court identified no point of law justifying judicial review.
3. The notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal was vague and disclosed no point of law justifying an appeal. The application was totally without merit. Order: application to reinstate the application for permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application to reinstate the permission application refused.
• Administrative Court: No point of law justifying judicial review identified.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Permission to appeal refused because no point of law justifying an appeal was identified.