Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU000182015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6 June 2016
On 8 June 2016
Decision given orally at the hearing.

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY

Between

mrs faiza jabeen

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr P Richardson, Counsel instructed by Morgan Mark Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Brocklesby-Weller, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born in April 1971. She had leave to remain as a student. On 30 October 2014 she made an application for a further extension which was refused.
2. In refusing the application the Secretary of State, in a letter dated 4 March 2015, said in two different places that she had a right of appeal against the decision and indeed set out the various grounds of appeal, these being grounds of appeal under Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The reality is that the Secretary of State was in error in stating that there was a right of appeal because the application had been made after 20 October 2014 when the provisions set out in the Immigration Act 2014 had come into play. The Commencement No. 3 Transitional and Savings Provisions Order 2014 makes it clear that after 20 October there was no statutory right of appeal. What should have been said was that there was a right of administrative review. The appellant acted on the basis of the terms of the refusal and lodged an appeal which eventually came before Designated Judge Manuell and was dismissed. It is unclear exactly what happened with regard to the issue of any jurisdictional point at the hearing before Judge Manuell but the reality is that he went on to dismiss the appeal substantively. The appeal before me is an appeal against that decision.

3. The reality however is that there was no right of appeal because of the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 to which I have referred. The terms of the Act are quite clear and I am not in a position to somehow extend the rights of the appellant to an appeal when no such rights exist. There is clear authority for that in the case of Virk v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 652. I therefore find that not only do I not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal but also Judge Manuell had no such jurisdiction. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

4. It is clear however that the appellant was induced to appeal because of the clear terms of the letter of refusal. They were wrong. The appellant has been penalised on costs because of the costs she has run up in bringing an appeal which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear.

5. Ms Brocklesby-Weller has confirmed that the appellant will now have a full administrative review notwithstanding that that administrative review is itself out of time. It is only fair that this should happen given that the appellant was not told of her rights to judicial review but was in effect misled in the letter of refusal when she was told that she had a right of appeal.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Signed Date 8th June 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge McGeachy