fbpx
Home
About Us
ABOUT US
Firm History & Expertise
City Legal is a multi award winning law firm specialising in UK Immigration Law, Wills & Estate Planning, Global Citizenship as well as providing Business, Education and HR Consultancy to both individual and corporate clients around the world.
Our Team
Meet the experts behind our success.
Accreditations & Awards
Check our credibility and reliability.
Reviews & Testimonials
View our client feedback from all sources.
Careers
Join our multi award-winning team.
Services
SERVICES
Knowledge Hub
KNOWLEDGE HUB
Resources
Quick and Easy access for relevant sources.
Videos
See informative videos on legal areas we cover.
Infographics
See visual presentation of key information.
E-Books
Digital information on different practice areas.
Webinars
View engaging online events & presentations.
Insights
Get more Insights on our firm and services.
News
Learn more on recent events and latest updates.
Podcasts
Listen to our audio version of blog anywhere.
Success Stories
Get a more understanding of our past experience.
View All
RECENT POSTS
UKVCAS introduced new IDV App to reuse biometrics
Corona Virus Immigration Update
Is no recourse to public funds (NRPF) amended?
Wills or Intestacy? The Corona Virus Legacy
Article 3 (Health Grounds) and Deportation;
Contact Us
CONTACT US
Call Us
Speak with our award-winning team on 0330 058 3929 to learn more. Available Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Request a Call Back
Choose a convenient time and we will get in touch to discuss your enquiry. Available Monday – Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Chat with Us
Our expert legal team is available to answer your questions. Available Monday – Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Email Us
Please send us an email to enquiries@citylegalservices.co.uk and we will be in touch to discuss your legal matter.
22 Peterborough Road, Harrow, London, HA1 2BQ
Client Area
CLIENT AREA
Track your Matter
City Legal offers our clients a state-of-the-art client portal to track your matter in real time and communicate with your case worker directly.
Manage Appointments
Already Booked a Consultation? Login to your Appointments Dashboard and manage your bookings or chat with your adviser prior to the meeting.
Document Management
Our clients can securely view, share and comment on documents online at any time via our dedicated document management portal linked to your matter.
Pay Legal Fees
We offer an online payment facility to our clients for the payment of Legal Fees or Client Invoices online by credit or debit card at no additional cost.
Download App   
Book an Appointment

TOEIC issue-court ruled that accused people have in-country right of challenge

The Court of Appeal has held in Ahsan v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 2009 that people accused of cheating on the TOEIC English language test and threatened with removal from the UK have the right to challenge that decision in this country rather than from abroad.

Lord Justice Underhill said that:

an out-of-country appeal would not satisfy the Appellants’ rights, either at common law or under article 8 of the Convention, to a fair and effective procedure to challenge the decisions to remove them; and that in those circumstances, subject to the human rights claim issue considered below, they were entitled to proceed with such a challenge by way of judicial review.

The court did not accept the Secretary of State’s argument that the application for judicial review should be rejected because the appellants could pursue an in-country appeal by way of a human rights application instead. The court has, helpfully, given for the assistance of practitioners a short summary of its reasoning at the conclusion of a lengthy judgment, although Underhill LJ stressed that it carries a risk of over-simplification. The summary is as follows:

(1) In deciding by what route a decision to remove someone on the basis that they cheated in a TOEIC test can be challenged, the starting-point is to establish whether the decision was made under the 2014 Act regime or its successor. (If it was made prior to 20 October 2014 it will fall under the old regime, and if it was made after 5 April 2015 it will fall under the new regime; in between those dates the position depends on the effect of the applicable commencement and transitional provisions.)

(2) If the decision falls under the old regime it will have been taken under section 10 of the 1999 Act in its unamended form. The person affected by the decision will generally have a right only to an out-of-country appeal, under section 82 of the 2002 Act, read with section 92 (1): they will not, except by unusual chance, have a right to an in-country appeal under the “human rights claim” provision of section 92 (4), because they will not typically have made such a claim prior to the removal decision: see para. 15.

(3) What the Court holds in part (A) – see in particular paras. 72-98 – is that an out-of-country appeal is not an effective remedy where (a) it would be necessary for the appellant to give oral evidence on such an appeal and (b) facilities for him or her to do so by video-link from the country to which they will be removed are not realistically available. It accordingly holds, subject to (4) below, that persons against whom such a decision is made will be entitled to challenge the decision by way of judicial review; that is so whether or not their article 8 rights are engaged. In reaching that conclusion the Court follows the approach of the Supreme Court in Kiarie and Byndloss to what are substantially similar circumstances and distinguishes its previous decisions in Mehmood and Ali and Sood. The Court finds that both conditions were satisfied in the present cases and observes that condition (a) is likely to be satisfied in TOEIC cases generally (see para. 91) and that in typical cases condition (b) is likely to be satisfied also (see para. 90).

(4) Notwithstanding (3), the Court at para. 99-127 accepts that in principle permission to proceed by way of judicial review could be refused if the person in question could achieve an equivalent remedy by an in-country human rights appeal under the 2014 Act regime, subject to the Home Secretary’s power to certify the claim as wholly unfounded. But such a remedy would only be equivalent if the three conditions identified at para. 116 above are satisfied, which they were not in these cases.

(5) Part (B) of the judgment concerns a challenge to the certification of a human rights claim in a particular case to which the 2014 Act regime applies. The Court finds that the certificate is liable to be quashed. The decision does not directly depend on the issue of whether the Appellant cheated in his TOEIC test, but the Court makes some observations about the appropriateness of certification where that is the determinative issue: see para. 156.

(6) The judgment also discusses the authorities on the extent to which the article 8 rights of students may be engaged by their removal prior to completion of their studies (see paras. 84-88) and the obligations of the Secretary of State to facilitate return in cases where a person who has been removed is successful in an out-of-country appeal (see para. 133).

Disclaimer: No material or information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice. Readers should always seek appropriate professional advice to resolve their Legal Matters.
About the Author
Adarsh Girijadevi

  Adarsh Girijadevi

Adarsh Girijadevi is the founding Director and Head of the Immigration at City Legal Services Ltd. He has immense experience in Immigration Law and is accredited at Level 3 (the highest level) by the OISC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram