Syed v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A proposed ground seeking to reopen an issue already considered and rejected by appellate authority is unarguable. A challenge to a binding decision has no basis while the law remains clear. An Article 8 argument requires proper evidence of private or family life capable of engaging that provision. It cannot give substance to a complaint about documentary requirements or adverse factual findings merely by being reformulated.

The applicant, an Indian national, entered the United Kingdom with leave to study and later held post-study migrant leave. His application for leave as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant was refused and his appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal. He renewed an application for permission to appeal on grounds concerning documentary requirements, the flexibility of the Secretary of State’s evidential policy, and Article 8. The Court of Appeal considered the application in his absence after attempts to contact him. The central issue was whether any proposed ground was arguable.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The court proceeded in the applicant’s absence because it was satisfied that he had received proper notice. After judgment, information arose suggesting that the notification position might have been inaccurate. The order therefore gave liberty to apply within 14 days to set it aside if the court had been misinformed.
2. Documentary requirements. The first proposed ground alleged that the relevant Immigration Rules required documentation which financial institutions could not provide. The issue had already been considered and rejected in Iqbal and Others [2015] EWCA Civ 169. The proposed ground was consequently unarguable.
3. Evidential policy. The second ground challenged the flexibility of the Secretary of State’s evidential policy. The court treated Rodriguez and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 2 as binding. The law was clear, and there was no basis for challenging that decision.
4. Article 8. The third ground alleged that removal would be disproportionate and unfair because the applicant was a genuine migrant unable, through no fault of his own, to meet the documentary requirements. The determinations and decision letters contained no proper evidence of private or family life to which Article 8 considerations could attach. The ground therefore had no substance and amounted to another attempt to advance the documentary-compliance complaint. In any event, it sought only to challenge adverse findings of fact.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. Liberty was given to apply within 14 days to set aside the order if the court had been misinformed about notification.
2. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): the applicant’s appeal against refusal of his immigration application was dismissed. The citation was not stated in the judgment.