Legal News
The unfair operation of the immigration appeals system is a matter of grave concern (25 November 2013)
Date: 25/11/2013
In an article, featured recently in the Observer, James Packer of Duncan Lewis, Keith Vaz MP (head of the home affairs committee) and barrister Colin Yeo (author of the influential ‘free movement’ blog) set out their concerns over the immigration appeals system.
The one sided nature of the appeal rules allow the Secretary of State to simply withdraw a decision preventing an appeal being heard. She is not required to give any reason, and the First-tier Tribunal has no power to prevent withdrawal.
We understand that a withdrawn decision does not feature in a win-loss ratio for cases managed by a Presenting Officer. As the Home Office’s lawyers in the Tribunal (Presenting Officers) have to win at least 70% of asylum appeals to keep their jobs, this operates as a clear incentive to them to withdraw the decisions in cases that they think they are likely to lose. Ironically therefore, the stronger a case is the more likely it is that the Presenting Officer will withdraw the decision.
To add insult to injury the Appellant will not have their fee refunded (these are refunded to successful appellants) and must pay a further fee to appeal when the decision is eventually “reconsidered” – often nothing more than a re-hash of the previous decision.
Following the Article in the Observer, James Packer was contacted by a number of the members of the public
who complained that similar actions have been taken in their cases. James has now written to the Home Office and the Tribunal warning that Duncan Lewis consider the rules themselves and their operation in practice unjust and unfair and will be bringing a challenge to have them ruled unlawful in the High Court unless they are immediately withdrawn.