When is a human rights claim a human rights claim?

12 August 2010 by

Shirin Jisha v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2043 (Admin) – Read judgment

When is a human rights claim a human rights claim in an immigration context? The High Court has recently considered this question in the case of a Bangladeshi citizen who had her visa cancelled when returning from a trip abroad.

This case related to the proper meaning of section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Secretary of State had argued that the claimant’s claim was not a “human rights claim” because the claim was not made “at a place designated by the defendant” but served as part of her appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against the defendant’s refusal to grant her leave to enter. It was held that the claim was a “human rights claim” within the terms of section 113(1).

“Human rights claim”

The claimant was a Bangladeshi citizen who had obtained multi-visa for entry clearance. On returning from a trip abroad and while the visa was still valid, she was sent a Notice for Refusal of Leave to Enter and her multi-visa for entry was cancelled on the grounds that she had made false representations and failed to disclose material facts to obtain it.

The refusal decision contained a One Stop Warning notice (“the one stop notice”) made under s. 120 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“NIAA”). The one stop notice stated that the claimant was entitled to appeal where the decision to remove her would be contrary to her rights under the ECHR. The notice indicated that her human rights claim, if she had one, should be outlined in a NOTICE TO APPEAL form. Under the Asylum and Immigration Procedure Rules 2005 (“the Procedure Rules”), this notice of appeal was to be filed at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”), who would then serve it on the defendant.

The claimant appealed on a number of grounds. The third ground of appeal mentioned in her skeleton argument (but not pursued in oral submissions) was that her human rights under Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR (the right to education) would be violated. This was considered and dismissed by the Immigration Judge, as were the other grounds.

The claimant applied for a reconsideration, which was refused. She then applied for discretionary leave to remain on the grounds that her Article 8 ECHR rights (right to respect for private and family life) would be infringed, as she had established a private life in the UK since her arrival. On 20 July 2009 this was also rejected.

The claimant sought permission to judicially review the decision of 20 July 2009 on the basis that, amongst other grounds, para. 353 of the Immigration Rules was not followed when making the decision. Under para. 353, entitled “Fresh Claims”, when a human rights claim has been refused and there is no appeal pending, the decision-maker will consider any further submissions and, if rejected, will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The claimant argued her submissions pertaining to Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR had been her first “human rights claim”; her further submissions, in the form of her Article 8 claim, therefore had been wrongly categorised as a first human rights claim as opposed to a second, and therefore rejected without considering whether they amounted to a fresh claim.

The defendant contended that her alleged initial claim, namely her Article 2, Protocol 1 claim did not qualify as a “human rights claim” under para. 353 because the claim was not within the strict definition of a “human rights claim” under section 113 NIAA. Section 113 NIAA defined a human rights claim as “a claim made by a person to the Secretary of State at a place designated by the Secretary of State...”. The defendant argued that the claimant had not made the claim to the Secretary of State but to AIT, and in a pre-hearing skeleton as opposed to the preceding notice of appeal document.

Judicial review successful

The judicial review succeeded before HH Judge Anthony Thornton QC. He noted the following points:

– The definition of a” human rights claim” within section 113 is stated within that section as being applicable to that specific part (part 5) of the NIAA. As such, it is not strictly applicable to para. 353 of the Immigration Rules. While it is desirable that there should be consistency, the Immigration Rules (which are an expression of policy) are applicable in a much wider context that part 5 NIAA;

– According to the section 113 definition, it only applies “unless the contrary intention appears” in part 5 NIAA. Therefore, if it were to apply outside a part 5 context, then it would also be subject to any “contrary intention” expressed in the relevant context being considered;

– The definition requires that the notice be served “at a place designated by the Secretary of State”, but there has been no formal statement to date as to where or to whom the claim should be served in for it to qualify as a “human rights claim” under section 113;

– The claimant had been served with a one stop notice prior to making her first human rights claim;

– Para. 12(1) of the Procedure Rules require a Tribunal to send any a notice of appeal that it receives to the defendant;

– It is well established that human rights grounds may be argued before the AIT even if they have never previously been made as a claim to the defendant nor subject to a decision.

HHJ Thornton QC recognised that the first human rights claim (on Article 2 of Protocol 1) was not made to the defendant directly, that it was possibly only raised for the first time in the skeleton for the AIT hearing and that even when raised it was not relied upon to any significant extent. However, the claim had been specifically considered and dismissed by the Immigration Judge. Consequently, a human rights claim (save possibly in the strict sense of section 113) was expressly raised, considered and dismissed for the purposes of para. 353.

Further, the claimant had been specifically instructed by the one stop notice to put her human rights claim within the notice of appeal and return it to the AIT, who would serve it on the defendant. Therefore:

although it was arguable that the expression “human rights claim” in paragraph 353 is not confined in its meaning to the meaning provided by section 113, in the context of this case, section 113 has in fact been complied with since the human rights claim was served at a place designated by the defendant, namely on the AIT as designated in the one stop notice and by the Procedure Rules.

The defendant had cited two cases in support of their submissions, but it was held that they were not on point. In SS and others (Ankara Agreement – no in-country right of appeal) Turkey [2006] UKAIT 00074 the AIT held that the claimants’ human rights claim had not been served on the Secretary of State but on the AIT, contrary to section 113. However, the case pertained to the definition of a “human rights claim” within the context of part 5 of the NIAA as opposed to para. 353. In R (on the application of Garfield Rainford) v SSHD [2008] EWHC 2474 (Admin), 17 October 2008 the judicial review application to have a human rights claim recognised as a second human rights claim failed because, like SS, the initial claim had not been made to the Secretary of State but to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. However, unlike Ms Jisha’s case, neither Rainford nor SS involved either a one stop notice or consideration of para. 12(1) of the Procedure Rules.

It was therefore held that

Paragraph 353 is clearly applicable to a second claim, whether or not it has been expressly referred to and the defendant acts in contravention of that paragraph if a second claim is in fact submitted and is dealt with as a new first claim under part 5 of the NIAA.

The fact that the second human rights claim was apparently weak and lacking detail was irrelevant:

It is not for the Administrative to decline relief where there has been a significant procedural error by the defendant merely because, if the procedural error is corrected in a future decision, the claimant’s application is then unlikely to succeed.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: