[2023] UKUT 00164 (IAC)

The respondent provided a review dated 22 September 2022. The PS mandates a “meaningful” review “taking into account the ASA and appellant’s bundle, providing the result of the review and particularising the grounds of refusal relied upon” [A.8]. It is made clear at [A.9] that pro-forma or standardised responses will be rejected by the Tribunal and the review must engage with the submissions made and the evidence provided. The review in this case gets off to a poor start by including three pro-forma paragraphs in which it is said that the refusal letter continues to be relied upon, asserts that the review complies with the PS and the refusal letter “as a whole alongside this document provides an overall view of the case and points in the ASA which are not specifically addressed should not be taken as accepted by the respondent”.

The review agrees with the ASA’s formulation of the issues in dispute and the respondent’s position is said to be set out in a counter-schedule. This gives consent for the new matter of the appellant’s son to be relied upon but contends that the appellant does not reside with his son and partner, and contact can be maintained via modern technology. The author of the review makes no effort whatsoever to engage with the additional evidence particularised in the ASA and contained in the appellant’s bundle.

The respondent’s failure to engage with the mandatory requirements of the PS in undertaking this review, in particular by failing to engage with the issues raised by the evidence of the appellant’s mental ill-health was an unacceptable departure from the requirements of procedural rigour. The PS emphasises the requirement on the part of both parties to identify the issues in dispute and to focus on addressing the evidence and law relevant to those issues in a particularised yet concise manner. This is consistent with one of the main objectives of reform and a modern application of the overriding objective pursuant to rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (FTT)(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. It ensures that there is an efficient and effective hearing, proportionate to the real issues in dispute.

A PS-compliant and focussed ASA often leads to a more focussed review, and in turn to a focussed and structured decision on the issues in dispute. Reviews are pivotal to reform in the FTT. The PS makes it clear that they must be meaningful and pro-forma or standardised responses will be rejected. They provide the respondent with an important opportunity to review the relevant up to date evidence associated with the principal important controversial issues. It is to be expected that the FTT will be astute to ensure that the parties comply with the mandatory requirements of the PS, including the substantive contents of ASAs and reviews.