- BY Colin Yeo
Further guidance from Upper Tribunal on withdrawal of immigration appeals
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
Not much to say about this one, but clearly it is important in those cases where the Home Office does withdraw a decision once the appeal has been lodged. Official headnote:
(i) The public law character of appeals to the FtT is reflected in the regulatory requirement governing the withdrawal of appeals that any proposed withdrawal of an appeal must contain the reasons for the course mooted and must be judicially scrutinised, per rule 17 of the FtT Rules and rule 17 of the Upper Tribunal Rules.
(ii) Judicial evaluation of both the withdrawal of an appellant’s appeal and the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s case or appeal is required.
(iii) Every judicial determination of an appellant’s proposal to withdraw an appeal or the Secretary of State’s proposal to withdraw requires a brief outline of the reasons for the decision. The purpose of the judicial scrutiny is to ensure that the appeal is being properly and correctly withdrawn.
(iv) Judicial scrutiny will normally result in the mooted withdrawal of the appeal being perfected by transmission of the notice to the parties required by Rule 17(iii). However, this will not occur automatically: for example where the proposed withdrawal lacks coherence or is based on a clear material misunderstanding or misconception.
(v) The outcome of the judicial scrutiny should be briefly reasoned.
(vi) Rule 29 of the FtT Rules is confined to the substantive determination of appeals.
(vii) The power of the FtT to set aside a decision under Rule 32 is exercisable only by the FtT President and the Resident Judges.
(viii) In cases where an unsuccessful appellant has a choice, best practice dictates that an application to set aside the impugned decision of the FtT under Rule 32 be first exhausted in advance of the lodgement of an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Where both species of challenge are lodged simultaneously, it will be sensible to assign them to the same Judge where feasible.
See also earlier case and post: When might an appeal continue even though Home Office withdraws the decision?
Source: TPN (FtT appeals – withdrawal) Vietnam [2017] UKUT 295 (IAC) (21 July 2017)
SHARE
