Procedural fairness
41.According to Mr Turner the respondent acted in a procedurally unfair manner as she was aware that the applicant had a sister prior to the 2nd interview but the respondent “… still attempted to undermine the Applicant’s credibility - contrary to the AOS/SGD it is submitted that the interviews themselves do not provide the Applicant a proper opportunity to provide his innocent explanation and as noted above the Applicant left the second interview still uncertain as to why he was prevented from boarding, and ultimately why his credibility was being called into question.”
- Background
- Balajigari & Others v SSHD
- The applicant’s submissions
- Balajigari
- Shen (Paper appeals; proving dishonesty)
- Begum
- The lawfulness of the respondent’s approach to dishonesty
- AA Nigeria v SSHD
- Ahmed (general grounds of refusal - material non-disclosure) Pakistan
- Omenma (Conditional discharge – not a conviction for an offence)
- Agha, R (on the application of) v SSHD
- The applicant’s understanding of the meaning of ‘family’ in the relevant guidance
- The issue of materiality
- Procedural fairness
- The respondent’s submissions
- Giri
- LE (Jamaica)
- Ahsan
- Relevant legislative framework
- Precedent fact
- Ex p Khawaja
- R (A) v Croydon LBC
- SSHD v Lim & Anor (R, on the application of)
- Khawaja
- Wednesbury
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses LTD v Wednesbury Corporation
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (no 2)
- R (Lord Carlile of Berriew) v SSHD
- Caroopen & Myrie
- Whether the respondent’s assessment of dishonesty was lawful when considered under conventional public law grounds
- Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad; Nare guidance)
- Abbas, R (on the application of) v SSHD
- Family who live in the UK
- Whether the applicant’s sister’s presence in the UK was a material fact in relation to the application
- Whether the decision was procedurally fair
- R (Mushtaq) v ECO (ECO - procedural fairness)
- R (Anjum) v ECO (entrepreneur-fairness generally)
- Conclusion