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

For a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, further representations must create a realistic prospect of success before an immigration judge. Documentary evidence, particularly readily fabricated documents, must be assessed with reserve and in the context of the totality of the evidence. Where the additional material does not materially improve the prospects of success, the Secretary of State may refuse to treat the representations as a fresh claim and need not refer them for a further hearing.

The claimant, a Pakistani national and Ahmadi, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to treat further representations as a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. His original asylum claim had been rejected by an immigration judge, who found that his account was not credible and that he did not require international protection.

The further representations relied principally on copies of a first information report and an application to a Station House Officer. The claimant argued that the Secretary of State had failed to consider his explanation for possessing the documents. Limited permission was granted on that ground. The issue was whether the representations, including the documents, created a realistic prospect of a successful appeal.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the corrected decision letter and to assess the further representations on their substance.
2. Documents such as first information reports may be readily fabricated and should therefore be treated with reserve. Their credibility must be assessed in the context of the totality of the evidence for and against the claim, following Tanveer Ahmed v Secretary of State [2002] UKIAT 00439.
3. Applying that approach, the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the additional documents, considered alongside the material already examined, did not create a realistic prospect of a successful appeal before an immigration judge.
4. It followed that the representations did not constitute a fresh claim for the purposes of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. No further hearing before an immigration judge was required.

The judgment records no appeal or prior judicial decision. It arose from a judicial review claim for which limited permission had been granted on the papers.