Adelzadeh, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An appeal from an Immigration Appeal Tribunal lies only on a point of law. Grounds concerning issues not pursued before the Tribunal, including asylum or Article 3 matters, cannot found permission to appeal. Where the Tribunal and adjudicator have properly assessed family life under Article 8 and the proposed removal, the Court of Appeal will not grant permission merely because removal causes personal hardship or because the applicant disagrees with factual findings. The absence of an arguable legal defect requires dismissal of the application.

Mr Adelzadeh, an Iranian citizen, arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. The Secretary of State refused the claim. An adjudicator rejected the asylum and Article 3 claims, finding the evidence lacked credibility and that there was no well-founded fear of persecution. The adjudicator accepted that family life existed with Ms Bruce, but concluded that she and any child could accompany him to Iran and that any interference would be proportionate.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal, which had been brought only on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, relying largely on grounds concerning asylum, Article 3, medical problems and family circumstances. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s decision disclosed an arguable error of law.

Application for permission to appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Keene held that no arguable error of law had been identified.

1. The appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and any appeal to the Court of Appeal, was confined to points of law. Grounds concerning the asylum and Article 3 claims, as well as medical matters not pursued before the Tribunal, could not provide a basis for permission to appeal.
2. The adjudicator had accepted that family life existed, but had considered whether Ms Bruce and any child could accompany the applicant to Iran. The adjudicator had also addressed proportionality if there were an interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. The Tribunal had considered Ms Bruce’s asserted employment-related risk in Iran and had rejected it. It had also concluded that the applicant could apply at the British Embassy in Iran to return to the United Kingdom, and that no evidence showed that process would take excessively long. The family-life issue had therefore been fully and properly considered.
4. Personal hardship, the applicant’s wish to establish a business and work in the United Kingdom, and disagreement with factual findings did not establish a legal defect. The application was dismissed because there was no foundation for a successful appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2005] EWCA Civ 448, permission to appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: On 16 November 2004, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the Article 8 issue.
• Adjudicator: The decision, promulgated on 4 December 2003, rejected the asylum and human rights appeal.