IMMIGRATION — Deportation — Refusal to revoke deportation order — Claimants’ human rights and asylum claims rejected — Deportation order made — Claimants seeking revocation of order but making no fresh claim — Right of Appeal — Whether exercisable from within United Kingdom — Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, ss 92(1)(4)(a), 113

R (BA (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (PE (Cameroon)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 119; [2009] WLR (D) 77

CA: Sedley, Longmore and Lloyd LJJ: 27 February 2009

A right of appeal against the Home Office’s refusal to revoke a deportation order was exercisable from within the United Kingdom.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in allowing appeals brought by BA and PE against the decision of Blake J [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin) that the right of appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order could only be exercised from abroad.

SEDLEY LJ said that the claimants’ claims were human rights claims and that made by PE was also an asylum claim and fell within the meaning ascribed to those words in s 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. They had argued that it followed from the plain words of s 92(1)(4)(a) that there was an in-country right of appeal. The Home Secretary accepted that, construed literally, the statute so provided, but argued that, as Blake J had accepted, an informed interpretation showed that only an out-of-country appeal was intended to be available where, as here, there was no fresh claim. The implication argued for on behalf of the Home Secretary was both feasible and arguable, but it was impossible to say that it was necessary, whether to make sense of the provisions or to prevent abuse of them. The appeals would be allowed.

LONGMORE and LLOYD LJJ delivered concurring judgments.

Appearances: Raza Husain and Raggi Kotak (Turpin & Miller) for BA; Raza Husain and Ronan Toal (Wilson & Co) for PE; Elisabeth Laing QC (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary

Reported by: Geraldine Fainer, barrister