Legal News

In the case of FR & Anor (Albania), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605, the Court of Appeal has given an important ruling as to the approach that needs to be followed by the Secretary of State in certifying asylum and human rights claims as “clearly unfounded” under section 94(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Court emphasised the need for the Secretary of State to give separate consideration to a claim for asylum, where she decides whether the claim should be refused, and the decision on the issue of certification. Certification is only possible where the claim permits of only one answer before a tribunal and would be bound to fail. On the facts of these cases, the Court quashed the certificates.

In the case of FR the appellant was represented by Monica Carss-Frisk QC of Blackstone Chambers and David Jones of Garden Court Chambers, instructed by Naim Hasani of Duncan Lewis Solicitors. In the case of KL the appellant was represented by Monica Carss-Frisk QC of Blackstone Chambers and Joseph Markus of Garden Court North Chambers, instructed by Jo Renshaw of Turpin & Miller LLP.

Solicitor with conduct, Naim Hasani, was very pleased with this judgment and states: “We welcome the Court of Appeal judgment on this case, especially because it obliges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to review her current policy/practice on how she approaches refusal and certification of asylum and human rights claims. This can only be a positive development for many refugees who are often victims of badly constructed decisions by the Home Secretary. The court drew an important conclusion that ‘The approach expected of the Secretary of State when considering certification and that the courts must exercise when considering a challenge to certification has been described as “anxious scrutiny”: Whatever term is used, it is clear from the authorities that the nature of the decision to certify means that when the administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant’s life at risk the supervisory jurisdiction by judicial review is exercised in an intensive way’”.

Naim Hasani operates an extremely specialised practice in judicial review claimant matters, challenging the lawfulness of the decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on asylum and immigration matters and unlawful detention. He represents clients on all Asylum, Immigration and Human Rights applications and appeals. He has a significant practice in British nationality deprivation, appeals and deportation matters.

Duncan Lewis Immigration Solicitors

Duncan Lewis was the first law firm in the UK to achieve Investors in People Gold Accreditation in 2009. Duncan Lewis operates the largest immigration team in the UK with a broad practice representing business and individual vulnerable clients at all levels in all aspects of personal immigration, asylum/human rights and nationality matters and is the dominant legal firm in the UK for the provision of publicly funded immigration legal services for asylum, immigration detention, bail, deportation appeals and EC law issues. The firm’s Immigration practice was recommended by Legal 500 UK 2015 as a Top Tier Immigration Practice in Wales in and as a Leading Immigration Practice in London and the Midlands area respectively. With more than 200 specialised staff providing assistance in more than 70 different languages, all of Duncan Lewis’ Immigration lawyers are specialists in their respective fields under the Law Society's Immigration & Asylum Accreditation Scheme. Duncan Lewis Immigration lawyers provide specialist immigration services from offices throughout London and across the UK. Duncan Lewis was shortlisted by the Law Society Excellence Awards 2015 for its excellence in diversity and staff development.