There is not any proper of appeal against a refusal by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to set aside a decision disposing of proceedings. So held the Court of Appeal in DJ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1057, one other case coping with the fallout from outgoing President Lane’s illegal Covid-19 steerage word on figuring out appeals with out a listening to.
Background
The anonymised appellant, DJ, was one among many whose appeals to the Upper Tribunal have been decided “on the papers” (that means with out a listening to) following a Covid-19 Presidential Guidance Note later discovered by Mr Justice Fordham to be illegal. Following that discovering, DJ utilized for the Upper Tribunal to set aside its decision, arguing that reliance on the steerage word was a ‘procedural irregularity’. His software, made beneath rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, was refused alongside a number of others from individuals in an analogous place (see EP (Albania) and others (rule 34 choices, setting aside) [2021] UKUT 233 (IAC)).
In the meantime, DJ had challenged the UT’s dismissal of his appeal on its deserves, and the Court of Appeal subsequently granted him permission to appeal. He requested the Court to hear an appeal against the rule 43 decision on the similar time. The subject for the Court was whether or not it had jurisdiction to accomplish that.
The Court of Appeal’s reasoning
Generally talking, there’s a right of appeal on a…
