[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Rana, R (on the application of) v Immigration Adjudicator [2004] EWCA Civ 811 (10 June 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/811.html Cite as: [2004] EWCA Civ 811

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE DAVIS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		10 June 2004

1. LORD JUSTICE BROOKE: This is an application by Mr Ganga Bahadur Rana for permission to appeal against a decision of Davis J on 24th February 2004 when he refused an application by Mr Rana for permission to apply for judicial review in this case.
2. Mr Rana is Nepalese. He arrived in this country in July 2001 and he was refused leave to enter in October 2001. Under our system of appeals he was allowed an appeal before an adjudicator who heard his appeal in May 2002. She rejected his claim. She did not accept the concerns that he was expressing and, after analysing the evidence that was placed before her, she did not consider that this was a case which qualified as a claim for asylum.
3. Mr Rana launched an application for permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It is not at all clear what happened. He says that he did not hear from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, although it appears from the papers before me that there was a ruling by the IAT refusing permission to appeal in July 2002 when an experienced vice-president was not satisfied that the appeal would have any prospect of success. There is no evidence that any enquiries were made of the Tribunal and nothing at all happened until 2nd September 2003 when he applied for judicial review of the dismissal of his appeal. He sought a review of the adjudicator's decision. But he did not anywhere in his application for judicial review raise arguments showing that there was a point of law in the case and very, very often in this court we have applications by people who do not appreciate that there is no right of appeal to the High Court or the Court of Appeal either under the Act or by way of judicial review if there is no point of law in the case.
4. McCombe J on 26th January 2004 said that the application was hopelessly out of time. There were no adequate reasons given for the delay and, in any event, the application had no sensible prospect of success for the reasons given by the Treasury Solicitor who resisted the application for judicial review. I have read the long reasons given for resisting the application.
5. Although McCombe J had rejected the application in such strong terms the applicant exercised his right for the matter to be heard in court before a High Court judge. It appears that a letter was faxed to the court on 23rd February. Unhappily in many of these cases from Nepal the applicant asks for a hearing before a High Court judge and then does not attend. Davis J rejected the application. It was a long time out of time for judicial review and there were no grounds on a point of law for challenging the decision which had been made.
6. The applicant then appealed against the order of Davis J, even though he had not attended court before Davis J. He said that he had gone to attend a funeral. In many of these cases this is typical of what happens in relation to these applications. At the very last minute, without giving the court any advance warning, for some reason or other the Nepalese appellant or applicant say that they could not attend court.
7. At all events an appeal was lodged to the Court of Appeal on 16th March 2004 which was out of time for appealing. Appeals in these cases have to be lodged within seven days, and the grounds for appeal are on grounds which I very, very frequently see in these cases which simply say:

"1. All my documentary evidence are not properly considered.

2. All relevant laws and rules are not taken into account.

3. My country information is not taken into account."

8. I have made it quite clear in many of these applications to this court in cases like this that these are not proper grounds of appeal. They do not disclose any detailed point of law which is fit for the consideration of this court.
9. Mr Rana has attended today with his family and with an interpreter who has been very helpful. He has put before the court a great deal of further information about the situation in Nepal, in the months and years after the adjudicator dismissed his appeal in June 2002. This represents a complete misunderstanding of our procedures. This court sits to hear appeals on points of law, not to consider new evidence except in very exceptional circumstances.
10. If Mr Rana wishes to put new evidence before the Secretary of State to invite him to reconsider what he has decided to do, then he is entitled to do so, but so far as the appeal is concerned this court considers the matter which was before the lower appellate authority.
11. I have considered the matters Mr Rana has put to me today through his interpreter, but they disclose no point of law at all which is fit for consideration by this court. The two High Court judges were completely correct in refusing applications for judicial review, particularly in the light of the very long delay which had happened and I therefore dismiss this application.
Order: Application dismissed.