Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)

(ii) Section 84 of the 2002 Act which, both before and after the aforementioned date, has made provision for appealing on the grounds that the removal of the Appellant from the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and/or would breach the United Kingdom’s obligations in relation to persons eligible for humanitarian protection and/or would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Prior to to 20 October 2014, section 84 provided: (1) An appeal under section 82(1) against an immigration decision must be brought on one or more of the following grounds— (a) that the decision is not in accordance with immigration rules; (b) that the decision is unlawful by virtue of Article 20A of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 or by virtue of section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination in the exercise of public functions etc) so far as relating to race as defined by section 9(1) of that Act; (c) that the decision is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (public authority not to act contrary to Human Rights Convention) as being incompatible with the appellant ' s Convention rights; (d) that the appellant is an EEA national or a member of the family of an EEA national and the decision breaches the appellant ' s rights under the Community Treaties in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom; (e) that the decision is otherwise not in accordance with the law; (f) that the person taking the decision should have exercised differently a discretion conferred by immigration rules; (g) that removal of the appellant from the United Kingdom in consequence of the immigration decision would breach the United Kingdom ' s obligations under the Refugee Convention or would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being incompatible with the appellant ' s Convention rights. (2) In subsection (1)(d) “EEA national” means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time). (3) An appeal under section 83 must be brought on the grounds that removal of the appellant from the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom ' s obligations under the Refugee Convention. (4) An appeal under section 83A must be brought on the grounds that removal of the appellant from the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom ' s obligations under the Refugee Convention. (35) The Trafficking Convention feature s in the decision of the Upper Tribunal in SHL ( supra ). One fea t ure of the matrix of the appeal to the Upper Tribunal in SHL was that the A uthority had made a formal decision that the Appellant was not a victim of trafficking. The Secretary of State, on the same date, made a separate decision rejecting the Appellant’s claim for asylum. This was challenged, unsuccessfully, by appeal to the FtT. In deciding the appeal, this Tribunal stated, at [33] : “ …… t h ere is no right of appeal to this Tribunal against the Respondent’s trafficking decision: see Part (v) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Secondly, the Trafficking Convention cannot be invoked as a free standing source of rights, obligations and legal effects and consequences in domestic law, as it is an unincorporated international treaty. ” The decision continues: “ A corollary of this principle is that a failure by a public authority to take into account the provisions of an unincorporated international treaty is not of itself a ground for impugning the exercise of a discretionary power: R v