F4 v Secretary of State for Home Department

The discretion to extend a time limit under rule 8(5) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 requires an appellant to show, on the balance of probabilities, special circumstances making it unjust to refuse an extension. The starting point is a satisfactory explanation for the whole period of delay. Where an appellant knew of the decision, knew how to appeal and consciously chose not to do so, the tribunal need not investigate a later underlying reason for continued delay. The importance of citizenship rights remains relevant, but does not displace legal certainty, procedural compliance and prejudice considerations. A tribunal does not commit a Mibanga error merely because it assesses lay evidence before expert evidence, provided it considers all the evidence holistically and gives rational reasons for rejecting unpersuasive expert evidence.

F4 appealed from a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, constituted by Lane J, Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup and Sir Andrew Ridgway, refusing to extend time for her appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deprive her of British citizenship. The applicable time limit was 28 days under rule 8(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, and the extension power was in rule 8(5).

SIAC found that F4 had learned of the deprivation decision in late December 2019 or early January 2020, understood the opportunity to appeal, and consciously decided not to do so. Her appeal was lodged in 2022. She challenged SIAC’s decision on three grounds: failure to identify her reason for the delay; treating an objectively unreasonable explanation as incapable of justifying an extension; and making the Mibanga error by assessing her account before considering expert psychological evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. SIAC had carefully analysed the evidence and was entitled, and right, not to extend time.
2. Under rule 8(5) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, SIAC was entitled first to ask whether F4 had shown any explanation for the delay and, if so, whether it was satisfactory. The approach in C12 was correct. The burden was on F4 to establish special circumstances on the balance of probabilities. The relevant question was whether refusal would be unjust, taking account of both individual injustice and the public interest in legal certainty, compliance with procedural rules and fairness to other litigants.
3. SIAC was entitled to find that F4 knew of the deprivation decision, knew how to appeal and made a conscious decision not to appeal within time. Once that finding was made, any different explanation for why she continued not to appeal until 2022 was irrelevant to the express question under rule 8(5). SIAC was not required to speculate about her later motivation.
4. The second ground failed. Read as a whole, SIAC had not directed itself that an objectively reasonable explanation was an absolute legal precondition to an extension. Its references to a reasonable explanation were context-specific and meant that the asserted explanation was not satisfactory on the facts.
5. The third ground also failed. Mibanga and Jakto Transport Limited v Hall did not require SIAC to accept or give weight to expert evidence which it had examined and rationally found unpersuasive. The ordering of reasons must be assessed in context. Applying AH (Sudan), an appellate court should not infer legal error from isolated passages in a careful expert tribunal’s judgment. SIAC considered the evidence in the round, including competing expert evidence, and its conclusion was open to it.
6. The court therefore dismissed the appeal on all three permitted grounds. Lord Justice Holgate and Lord Justice Baker agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2025] EWCA Civ 291: appeal from SIAC dismissed on all three permitted grounds.
• Special Immigration Appeals Commission — SIAC (Lane J, Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup and Sir Andrew Ridgway), judgment in SC/193/2022: refused to extend time for F4’s appeal against deprivation of citizenship.