The respondent’s submissions
42.We summarise the respondent’s submissions, as detailed in Ms Anderson’s skeleton argument and her oral submissions. 43.With respect to the grant of permission to appeal issued by Lady Justice Rose, the Court of Appeal did not purport to make any factual findings or to decide any issue that was now before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had to determine what Ms Anderson termed “the constitutional issues” before it could properly form any view of the underlying merits of the application of the general grounds for refusal.44.In relation to the question of precedent fact, Ms Anderson submitted that the Tribunal could only undertake a supervisory role in its approach to the issue of dishonesty such that its function was to review the respondent’s decision on conventional public law grounds. Ms Anderson relied on the judgment in
- 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