Arifuzzaman Rana v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)

18 October 2024

[2024] EWCA Civ 1211

Court of Appeal

Mr. Rana's application to stay in the UK was refused. He tried to appeal but missed some deadlines due to mistakes by both his lawyer and the court. The court forgave the missed deadlines, but ultimately decided he couldn't win the appeal because the government's initial refusal wasn't the type of refusal that allows for an automatic appeal.

Key Facts

•Arifuzzaman Rana's application for leave to remain was refused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 22 June 2018.
•Rana challenged this refusal through various legal avenues, including judicial review and statutory appeal, all of which were unsuccessful.
•Rana applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and for permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal's decision.
•Significant delays occurred in the Court of Appeal due to administrative errors and procedural issues related to the filing of documents.
•The central legal issue was whether the Secretary of State's decision of 22 June 2018 was an appealable decision under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
•The case involved interpreting the application of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules regarding whether further submissions constitute a ‘fresh claim’.

Legal Principles

Test for granting an extension of time under Denton v TH White Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 906.

Denton v TH White Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 906

Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Immigration Act 2014, sets out the right of appeal to the Tribunal.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s. 82(1)

Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules outlines the criteria for determining whether further submissions constitute a fresh claim.

Immigration Rules, para. 353

Interpretation of the case law in *Sheidu v Secretary of State for the Home Department* [2016] UKUT 412 (IAC), *R(Robinson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department* [2019] UKSC 11, and *R(Akber) v Secretary of State for the Home Department* [2021] UKUT 260, regarding appealable decisions and the application of paragraph 353.

Sheidu, Robinson, Akber

Outcomes

Extension of time granted.

The Court acknowledged and apologized for its own administrative failures, which rendered the applicant's procedural failings immaterial. The court considered it fair and just to grant the extension of time.

Permission to appeal refused.

The Court found that the applicant had no real prospect of success on appeal. The Secretary of State's decision was not a refusal of a human rights claim under section 82, but rather followed the procedure of paragraph 353. The letter's wording and structure, unlike that in *Sheidu*, did not provide grounds for appeal.

Arifuzzaman Rana v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Zakoan Ahmed Chowdhury, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Guren Zhou & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Have Rexhaj

Emilio Branco-Bonfim, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Sufia Begum v The Secretary of State for the Home Department