Emilio Branco-Bonfim, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 1421
Taulant Dani v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2 November 2023
[2023] UKUT 293 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
Mr. Dani's application to stay in the UK was rejected. He argued this broke his human rights, but the court said the rules for this type of application don't allow that argument unless it's about being kicked out of the country. Since his argument wasn't about that, the court couldn't consider it.
Key Facts
- •Taulant Dani, an Albanian citizen, entered the UK clandestinely in 2013.
- •He married a Spanish citizen in 2021 and applied for pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), which was refused.
- •His appeal to the First-tier Tribunal argued that the refusal breached his Article 8 ECHR rights.
- •The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Article 8 claim in the context of an EUSS appeal.
- •Dani appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Legal Principles
A mere refusal of leave to remain under the EUSS is not, without more, a "human rights claim" under section 113(1) of the 2002 Act.
Dani (non-removal human rights submissions) [2023] UKUT 293 (IAC)
The "new matter" regime in the 2020 Regulations does not regulate the Tribunal's consideration of non-removal human rights submissions.
Dani (non-removal human rights submissions) [2023] UKUT 293 (IAC)
The Tribunal may only consider matters relevant to the substance of the decision appealed against.
Dani (non-removal human rights submissions) [2023] UKUT 293 (IAC)
Section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not permit an appellant to advance a free-standing Article 8 claim in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal; it acts as a shield, not a sword.
Dani (non-removal human rights submissions) [2023] UKUT 293 (IAC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed Dani's appeal.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider Dani's Article 8 claim because it was not a "human rights claim" as defined in the 2002 Act and was not relevant to the substance of the EUSS decision. Further, Section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act does not provide a free-standing right to raise such a claim in this context.