Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)

[1996] Imm AR 148 is authority for the proposition that a failure by the Secretary of State to apply her own policy is an error of law. The Court further held that there is no obligation on the appellant to challenge a negative trafficking decision by judicial review, stating at [14]: “ The FT T Judge should consider the matter for himself. ” The Court expressed its conclusion in the following terms, at [17]: “ ….. First tier Tribunal j udges are competent to consider whether the Secretary of State has complied with her policy in relation to trafficking. If asked to consider that question, they should then decide whether she has in fact complied with her policy since that is (or may be) rele vant to her removal decision. [18] …… No doubt, if a conclusive decision has been reached by the Competent Authority, First T ier Tribunals will be astute (save perhaps in rare circumstances) to allow an appellant to re-run a case already decided against him on the facts. But where, as here, it is arguable that, on the facts found or accepted, the Competent Authority has reached a decision which was not open to it, that argument should be heard and taken into account. ” (39) We are satisfied that in the final part of this passage the Court is referring to the standard of perversity (or