Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

[2023] UKUT 00293 (IAC)

Fecha: 27-Jul-2023

Issues on appeal to the Upper Tribunal

Issues on appeal to the Upper Tribunal

12.

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal to demonstrate that the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to grant leave to him under the EUSS was a breach of the appellant's Convention rights:

Ground 1: The judge was wrong to treat the appellant’s submissions under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act as being capable of amounting to a ground of appeal under section 84(1) of the 2002 Act, and therefore subject to the “new matter” restrictions under regulation 9(5) of the 2020 Regulations. She erred by ascribing determinative significance to the Secretary of State’s decision to withhold her consent to address the appellant’s substantive human rights submissions.

Ground 2: The judge was wrong to conclude that section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act did not permit the appellant to advance general human rights-based submissions in any event. It was an error for the judge to apply regulation 9(5), rather than section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act.

13.

Mr Toal relied on his skeleton argument dated 25 July 2023, and, resisting both grounds of appeal, Mr Terrell relied on the Secretary of State’s skeleton arguments dated 19 and 26 July 2023. We permitted Mr Toal to make post hearing submissions addressing the Secretary of State’s supplementary skeleton argument. We are grateful to Mr Toal for his further written submissions dated 4 August 2023, and to both advocates for the quality of their assistance generally.