Dareshoorian v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Representatives must comply with Court of Appeal practice directions governing renewed applications for permission to appeal. Necessary papers should be filed at least seven days before the hearing, and a paragraph 4.14A statement at least four days beforehand. In asylum cases, where the merits have already been considered by experienced judges, a successful oral application after two refusals should be very rare. Practitioners should not present challenges to factual findings as errors of law. Video-link hearings may reduce costs and preserve judicial resources.

An Iranian citizen’s asylum and human-rights appeal was dismissed on reconsideration by an immigration judge. A senior immigration judge refused a further appeal, and Buxton LJ refused permission on paper. The appellant’s solicitors then sought oral reconsideration but later requested dismissal shortly before the hearing.

The Court of Appeal retained the matter in the list because the circumstances raised important issues concerning compliance with practice directions, renewed applications for permission to appeal, and the use of public and judicial resources.

1. Application refused. The court made the requested order and ordered assessment of the appellant’s Legal Services Commission costs.
2. Representatives must comply with Court of Appeal practice directions. Necessary papers for a listed hearing should be filed at least seven days beforehand. A statement under CPR PD 52.4.14A should be filed at least four days beforehand. The direction exists to ensure proper merits assessment and a considered decision about further public expenditure.
3. In asylum cases where permission is sought orally after two refusals, success should ordinarily be regarded as very unlikely. The merits will already have been considered by an experienced senior immigration judge and by a Court of Appeal judge. The court’s statistics showed that successful third applications were very rare.
4. Practitioners must distinguish appeals on facts from appeals on law. Factual criticisms should not be recast as errors of law. The court referred to its guidance in R Iran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982.
5. For short hearings, video links may work well. The comparative costs of a video hearing and lawyers travelling to London may be relevant to costs assessment, following Black v Pastouna [2005] EWCA 1389.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Oral reconsideration of Buxton LJ’s refusal of permission to appeal was refused.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: The asylum and human-rights appeal was dismissed on reconsideration, and a senior immigration judge refused a further appeal.
• On paper: Buxton LJ refused permission to appeal.