England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		2 March 2016

1. LADY JUSTICE SHARP:
2. The applicant renews his application for permission to appeal in relation to an application for judicial review of the decision of the Upper Tribunal, who refused the his application to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department made on 30 January 2014, not to grant leave to remain and not to treat the matters advanced as fresh grounds for such a consideration.
3. For present purposes it is unnecessary to set out the facts, which are fully set out in the skeleton argument prepared by Mr Nicholson, who appears today on behalf of the applicant.
4. The application was originally refused on the papers by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede on 21 August 2014. It was renewed orally and was refused again by Upper Tribunal Judge King on 23 October 2014. The applicant then applied for permission to appeal to this court, relying on five grounds of appeal. It is unnecessary to set those out either. Those were considered by Beatson LJ, who gave reasons for rejecting all of them.
5. Of those grounds, Mr Nicholson now only renews the ground that the respondent misunderstood and / or misapplied the correct test in considering whether the application constitutes a fresh claim, which is said to be part of ground 5. As I understand it and as is advanced orally today, the submission is that notwithstanding that the Secretary of State may have applied the correct test when considering that matter when she made her decision on 30 January 2014, that was somehow invalidated by what was said subsequently in a letter in response to the applicant's solicitors, in a letter from the SSHD in February 2014.
6. In my judgment, that is an impossible argument to maintain and gives rise to no arguable ground of appeal. In the decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede it was said correctly that:

i. "The applicant relies upon representations made in October 2008, June 2009 and, most recently, 11 October 2011 as giving rise to a fresh claim to be entitled for leave to remain in article 8 grounds. However, the respondent, in her letter of 30 January 2014, in addition to the previous letter of 17 March 2010, gave detailed and cogent reasons for finding that they did not amount to a fresh claim, and so concluding the respondent undertook a thorough assessment of the representations considering in detail the circumstances of the applicant in terms of family and private life, both within the post-9 July 2012 immigrations rules and on wider article 8 grounds in line with relevant jurisprudence."

7. There are no grounds for impugning the decision that was made on 30 January 2014. As I have already indicated, it is not arguable in my view that what was said subsequently can somehow invalidate the decision that was properly made.
8. Accordingly, this renewed application for permission to appeal is refused.
9. Order: Application refused