The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal which sought to challenge the continued application of rule 353 of the Immigration Rules to further human rights submissions. In R (Robinson) v SSHD [2019] UKSC 11, the Appellant argued that amendments made in the Immigration Act 2014 to the appeal rights contained in section 82 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘NIAA 2002’) made rule 353 redundant in assessing whether a right of appeal arose from a decision to reject further submissions on a human rights or protection claim. The Appellant argued that a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse to treat further submissions as a fresh claim was a refusal of “a human rights claim” and, therefore, an appealable decision under section 82 of the NIAA 2002.

The Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Arden) rejected that argument and found that the 2014 Act amendments made no difference to the application of rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. It held that the Court of Appeal’s previous judgment in ZA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 926, [2011] QB 722 had correctly analysed the effect of pre-Immigration Act 2014 Act case-law of the Supreme Court and House of Lords on the interaction between rule 353 and section 82 of the NIAA 2002.

The judgment settles an issue that has troubled the Upper Tribunal and higher courts on several occasions since the enactment of the Immigration Act 2014.

David Blundell and Toby Fisher appeared for the Secretary of State, led by the Treasury Devil, Sir James Eadie QC.

A copy of the judgment can be found here

icon-accordion-chevron icon-arrow-left icon-arrow-right icon-chevron-down icon-chevron-left icon-cross icon-download icon-letter icon-linked-in icon-phone-outline icon-phone icon-search icon-search icon-select-chevron icon-top-right-corner icon-twitter