Rana, R (on the application of) v Immigration Adjudicator

Judicial review cannot be used as a general appeal from an immigration adjudicator. The Court of Appeal considers points of law arising from the decision below and does not ordinarily receive new evidence, save in very exceptional circumstances. General complaints that evidence, laws or country information were overlooked disclose no appealable point unless they identify a particular legal error. An application made substantially out of time, without adequate explanation for delay, may also be refused.

The claimant, a Nepalese national, was refused leave to enter the United Kingdom in 2001. An immigration adjudicator rejected his appeal against that decision in 2002. The papers appeared to show that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused permission to appeal in July 2002.

In September 2003, the claimant sought judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision. McCombe J considered the application hopelessly out of time and without a sensible prospect of success. Davis J subsequently refused permission to apply for judicial review on 24 February 2004. The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether his grounds disclosed a point of law, whether the application was out of time, and whether later evidence could be considered.

Per Lord Justice Brooke, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

1. The Court of Appeal’s role in immigration appeals is to consider points of law. It is not a general appellate forum for reconsidering the factual assessment made by an immigration adjudicator.
2. Grounds asserting in general terms that documentary evidence, relevant laws, rules or country information were not considered do not disclose a point of law fit for consideration. They must identify a specific legal error.
3. The court considers the matter that was before the lower appellate authority. New evidence is not ordinarily admissible on the appeal, except in very exceptional circumstances. Material arising after the adjudicator’s decision should instead be presented to the Secretary of State in support of any request for reconsideration.
4. The claimant’s application for judicial review was substantially out of time. No adequate explanation for the delay had been provided. That delay was an additional reason why permission was properly refused.
5. The claimant’s material, including later information about conditions in Nepal, disclosed no arguable point of law. McCombe J and Davis J were therefore correct to refuse the applications for judicial review. The formal order was that the application be dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 June 2004, Lord Justice Brooke dismissed the application for permission to appeal: [2004] EWCA Civ 811.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Davis J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 24 February 2004.
• High Court, Administrative Court: McCombe J rejected the application on 26 January 2004, principally because it was out of time and had no sensible prospect of success.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: The papers appeared to show that permission to appeal was refused in July 2002.
• Immigration adjudicator: The claimant’s appeal against refusal of leave to enter was rejected in 2002.