RA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal from an immigration tribunal determination may be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an arguable point of law. A disagreement with, or challenge to, a tribunal’s factual assessment does not itself create such a question. Whether family support would be available on return was a question of fact. On the facts found, removal was not a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights merely because the applicant had a close relationship with her foster mother.

The appellant entered the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied minor and was granted leave to remain until she reached 18. Her application for indefinite leave to remain was refused. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal upheld the refusal, and, on reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge King TD found that she had not proved that family support would be unavailable in Nigeria.

Senior Immigration Judge Latter refused permission to appeal, holding that no question of law arose and that removal would not disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s Article 8 rights. Hallett LJ refused permission. The appellant renewed her application before the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the tribunal’s decision disclosed an arguable error of law.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The Court could grant permission only if there was an arguable point of law, and none arose.
2. Family support. The question whether support existed in Nigeria was a question of fact. The tribunal had found that the appellant had not proved that she would be without family support. The Court identified no error of law in that approach, notwithstanding the limited material available.
3. Article 8. The tribunal had considered whether removal would be a disproportionate interference with private or family life. The appellant had no family in the United Kingdom, although she had a close relationship with her foster mother. The Court agreed that the conclusion that removal was not disproportionate disclosed no arguable question of law.
4. Additional observation. Lord Justice Longmore expressed the hope that the Secretary of State might, as an act of mercy, allow the appellant to complete her nursing course. That possibility was distinct from the legal issue before the Court and did not affect the order.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 13 March 2008, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The Court held that no arguable point of law arose: [2008] EWCA Civ 330.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The Tribunal upheld the Secretary of State’s refusal. On reconsideration, Senior Immigration Judge King TD redetermined the matter on 14 September 2007 and found that the appellant had not proved that family support would be unavailable in Nigeria. Senior Immigration Judge Latter refused permission to appeal, holding that no question of law arose and that removal was not disproportionate under Article 8.
• Permission stage: Hallett LJ refused permission to appeal before the application was renewed before Lord Justice Longmore.