Key Facts
- •Shahanas Kanhirakanadan (appellant) appealed a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which overturned a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision granting him leave to remain in the UK.
- •The FTT found the Secretary of State (respondent) hadn't proven the appellant's dishonesty, a key factor in the respondent's refusal of his leave to remain application.
- •The UT found the FTT's decision was based on a material mistake of fact, due to the FTT's unawareness of previous judicial review proceedings and evidence related to allegations of dishonesty.
- •The appellant's appeal concerns whether the FTT's findings on dishonesty should be preserved for a rehearing.
- •The appellant's immigration history involved previous applications where he claimed earnings from a company later found to be a sham.
Legal Principles
Material mistake of fact can be a ground for challenge in an appeal on a point of law, particularly when parties share an interest in achieving a correct result.
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department; joined with R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49
In considering whether to admit new evidence on appeal, Ladd v Marshall principles apply, but can be departed from in exceptional circumstances where justice requires.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; E v Secretary of State for the Home Department
If a tribunal finds an appellant did not cheat, the Secretary of State should act as if the error hadn't been made, potentially granting leave.
Ahsan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 2009
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The UT was entitled to admit the previously unavailable evidence and overturn the FTT's findings on dishonesty because they were based on a material mistake of fact amounting to an error of law. The appellant's knowledge of the evidence and the potential for an unfair advantage contributed to this decision.