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

On a second appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. A renewed challenge that merely re-argues the facts and submissions considered below does not satisfy that threshold. Where Immigration Rules paragraph 322(1A) applies, refusal is mandatory if the applicant has submitted a false document. A properly reasoned finding, made on the balance of probabilities, that the document was false does not ordinarily raise an arguable point of principle or practice.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against a First-tier Tribunal determination dated 21 August 2014. The tribunal found that she had submitted a false college transcript in support of an application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 student migrant and dismissed her appeal under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules. The Upper Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 9 December 2014, and Kitchin LJ refused permission to appeal on 19 June 2015. The Court of Appeal considered the renewed application, including the appellant’s challenge to the factual finding and her request for an adjournment. The central issue was whether the second appeal test was met.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The court proceeded in the appellant’s absence because the medical material did not adequately explain why she could not attend, and the matter had already been adjourned.
2. Second appeal threshold. The application was subject to the second appeal test. Permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or there was another compelling reason for it to be heard. The appellant’s challenge did not meet that threshold. It sought to re-argue substantially the same case on the same facts and grounds already considered by the tribunals below.
3. False document finding. Paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules provides for mandatory refusal where false documents or information have been submitted, whether or not they are material to the application and whether or not the submission was to the applicant’s knowledge. The relevant issue was whether the Secretary of State had proved that the transcript was false.
4. Application to the facts. The First-tier Tribunal had heard and assessed the appellant’s evidence and was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the transcript was false. The college had closed before the date appearing on the document, and the appellant’s own account was inconsistent with the transcript. The Upper Tribunal had found no error of law. The Court of Appeal agreed that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and raised no important point of principle or practice or other compelling reason.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 17 March 2016, the renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed: [2016] EWCA Civ 630.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). On 9 December 2014, the appellant’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was dismissed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). On 21 August 2014, the appellant’s appeal was dismissed after a finding that she had submitted a false document.