Ivan Remenar, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A judicial review claim challenging an asylum inadmissibility decision must be brought promptly and, in any event, within three months. Reliance on legal advice, lack of representation or confusion about the availability of a statutory appeal does not, without more, establish a good reason to extend time.

Where the statutory conditions for treating a claim as inadmissible are satisfied because the claimant is a national of a listed country, the Secretary of State must consider the claim inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances justify a different conclusion. A generic assertion of personal danger, without evidence showing that protection in the listed country is insufficient, does not establish procedural unfairness, irrationality or exceptional circumstances.

The claimant, a Croatian national, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision of 18 July 2025 treating his asylum claim as inadmissible under section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and paragraph 327F of the Immigration Rules. He had no statutory right of appeal against that decision.

The First-tier Tribunal subsequently held that an attempted statutory appeal was inadmissible. The claimant later lodged a judicial review claim and renewed an application for permission after permission was refused on the papers. He alleged procedural unfairness and irrationality, arguing that his interview and the conditions in Croatia had not been properly considered. The issues were whether time should be extended and whether the Secretary of State’s decision was arguably unlawful.

1. Time limit. The claim was brought significantly out of time. The claimant’s reliance on legal advice, his status as a litigant in person and his lack of legal representation did not provide a good reason to extend time. He knew of the decision and its impact, and further time elapsed after the First-tier Tribunal held his attempted appeal inadmissible.
2. Merits. The grounds were unarguable. The Secretary of State’s decision had been carefully considered and was amply justified. Under section 80A(4) and (5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Croatia was a country listed under section 80AA. There was no evidence that Croatia had derogated from its obligations under article 15 of the Convention or was subject to a proposal under article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union. The Secretary of State was therefore obliged to treat the claim as inadmissible, subject to exceptional circumstances.
3. The claimant’s generic assertion that there had been an attempt on his life did not show a personal risk on return or establish exceptional circumstances sufficient to reverse the presumption of inadmissibility. Nor did it demonstrate that Croatia lacked a sufficiency of protection.
4. Permission was refused and the renewed application was dismissed.

The judgment records that permission for judicial review was refused on the papers by HHJ Marquand, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, on 16 February 2026. The claimant renewed his application, which was refused by the present court.