Arifuzzaman Rana v First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)
[2024] EWCA Civ 1211
Zakoan Ahmed Chowdhury, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
8 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1380
Court of Appeal
Imagine you get a letter saying your application was rejected, but it wrongly says you can't appeal. The court ruled that the 14-day appeal clock only starts when you get a proper letter explaining your appeal rights. Since Mr. Chowdhury's first letter was wrong, his later appeal was on time, even though it was late according to the first (incorrect) letter.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Chowdhury's application for a residence card was refused on 30 November 2016.
- •The refusal notice incorrectly stated he had no right of appeal.
- •The Court of Appeal later reversed the Upper Tribunal's decision in Sala v Secretary of State for the Home Department, establishing a right of appeal in similar cases.
- •Mr. Chowdhury appealed the 2016 refusal on 13 November 2022, exceeding the 14-day appeal limit.
- •The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal as out of time.
- •The Upper Tribunal allowed judicial review, holding the appeal was timely because the initial notice was defective.
- •The Secretary of State appealed the Upper Tribunal's decision.
Legal Principles
The 14-day appeal period begins only after a compliant notice of decision is sent, meeting the requirements of the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003.
Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003, Regulation 5(3)(a)
A notice of decision that fails to inform an individual of their right of appeal does not substantially comply with Regulation 5(3)(a) and does not trigger the 14-day appeal period.
Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003, Regulation 5(3)(a)
The validity of the notice of decision is a separate question from the merits of the appeal itself when determining timeliness.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, Rule 19(2)
Substantial compliance with notice requirements is necessary to start the appeal period; mere validity of the underlying decision is insufficient.
OS (Russia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 357
The court should not consider hypothetical adverse consequences of invalidating the notice when assessing timeliness, focusing instead on actual compliance with regulations.
Various case law cited and analysed in sections 37-45
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal.
The initial notice of decision did not comply with the 2003 Regulations by failing to inform Mr. Chowdhury of his right of appeal. Therefore, the 14-day appeal period did not begin to run until a compliant notice was served (which never happened), meaning his appeal was lodged in time.
Similar Cases
Guren Zhou & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 81
Mary Jane Baluden Oceana, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
[2023] EWHC 791 (Admin)
Sufia Begum v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 46 (IAC)
G Brida v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 401 (GRC)