SY (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On a second appeal, permission may be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. A renewed application is not an opportunity to reconsider the underlying immigration decision. The court examines whether the proposed grounds disclose an arguable error of law or otherwise satisfy the second-appeal threshold. A tribunal may refuse an adjournment where the party has had adequate time to prepare, and may exclude evidence produced so late that proper inquiries cannot be made. Findings that a document is false are evaluative findings on the evidence and do not ordinarily disclose an error of law.

The applicant’s application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant was refused because he had not shown sufficient funds and the Secretary of State considered a supporting bank letter to be false. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal under the Immigration Rules and found that he had dishonestly made a false representation. The Upper Tribunal, on 22 October 2014, dismissed his appeal, upheld the refusal of an adjournment, found no error of law, and declined to admit late evidence from the bank. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on five grounds. The central issue was whether the proposed second appeal met the applicable permission threshold.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The Court of Appeal was not reconsidering the Secretary of State’s substantive decision on leave to remain.

1. Second appeal threshold. Permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. The grounds disclosed no such issue and there was no real prospect of success.
2. Adjournment. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to refuse an adjournment. The applicant had had ample time to prepare his case, and the refusal disclosed no arguable error of law.
3. Evidence and falsity finding. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled, on the evidence, to find that the bank letter was false. Arguments about the burden and standard of proof did not establish an error of law. The Upper Tribunal was also entitled to decline to admit a further bank letter produced on the morning of the hearing, since its late disclosure prevented proper inquiries.
4. Remaining grounds. The third ground repeated the second, while the fifth added nothing. None provided a compelling reason for a second appeal.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal: On 24 February 2016, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused: [2016] EWCA Civ 311.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Judge Perkins dismissed the appeal on 22 October 2014, finding no error of law and refusing to admit the late evidence.
• First-tier Tribunal: The substantive immigration appeal was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the refusal under the Immigration Rules and found that the applicant had made a false representation.