Secretary of State for the Home Department v First-Tier Tribunal (Asylum Support)

An appeal under sections 103(1) and 103(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 permits the First-tier Tribunal (Asylum Support) to examine the foundational reasoning for refusing or stopping asylum support. This includes whether an asylum claim was validly treated as withdrawn under paragraph 333C of the Immigration Rules. The withdrawal decision is not artificially separate where it supplies the basis for the support decision. Jurisdiction exists regardless of whether the appeal ultimately succeeds. Section 103(2) applies where support has been provided and then stopped at a time which, if the appellant’s case is accepted, is before it would otherwise have ended. Dogan [2003] EWCA Civ 1673 was distinguishable.

MAH, LKL and GK brought linked appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Asylum Support). MAH and GK challenged the discontinuance of section 95 support; LKL challenged refusal of support. Each decision followed the Secretary of State’s treatment of the appellant’s asylum claim as withdrawn after failure to attend an interview.

The Tribunal examined the underlying withdrawal decisions and remitted the cases for reconsideration. The Secretary of State’s judicial review challenge was dismissed by Chamberlain J in the Administrative Court: [2025] EWHC 694 (Admin). The appeal concerned whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to examine the withdrawal decisions and whether section 103(2) applied to support stopped on that basis.

Appeal dismissed. Stuart-Smith LJ gave the judgment, with which Jackson and Bean LJJ agreed.

1. Sections 103(1) and 103(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provide an appeal jurisdiction which is not confined to the headline decision. In accordance with the ordinary meaning of an unqualified appeal, the Tribunal may review the decision in all its aspects, including its factual and legal basis, and may exercise the powers in section 103(3). This includes examining the foundational reasoning for refusing or withdrawing support.
2. For section 94(1), an asylum-seeker must have made a recorded claim which has not been determined and must not have withdrawn it, expressly or by conduct treated under the Immigration Rules as inconsistent with continuing it. That status question is not immune from examination in a support appeal. Whether a claim was validly treated as withdrawn under paragraph 333C involves factual and legal inquiries akin to those which the Tribunal already resolves in support cases. It concerns the withdrawal process, not the merits of the asylum claim.
3. The decision to treat an asylum claim as withdrawn cannot be isolated as an immune prior decision where it is the foundation and reason for refusing or stopping support. The Tribunal may look behind the support decision and determine the withdrawal issue for itself. The jurisdiction exists whether or not the appellant’s case is ultimately well founded. Any public law error in the withdrawal decision inevitably taints the consequential support decision.
4. Section 103(2) applies where the Secretary of State has provided section 95 support and then stopped providing it at a time which, if the appellant’s case is accepted, is before it would otherwise have ended. Dogan was distinguishable because support had not been provided in the first place, the issue concerned a location condition, and section 103(7) supplied a separate unexercised regulation-making route for appeals about location.
5. The Tribunal’s remittal decisions were therefore within jurisdiction. The Secretary of State’s appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal. Stuart-Smith LJ gave judgment; Jackson and Bean LJJ agreed: [2025] EWCA Civ 1654.
• Administrative Court, High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division: Chamberlain J dismissed the Secretary of State’s judicial review challenge to the Tribunal’s decision: [2025] EWHC 694 (Admin).
• First-tier Tribunal (Asylum Support): Principal Judge Storey determined the linked appeals, held that the Tribunal could examine the withdrawal basis of the support decisions, and remitted the cases for reconsideration.