All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
Applying anxious scrutiny, the Defendant was found not to have erred in finding that the Claimant's further submissions did not amount to a fresh claim.
15 November 2012
(1) By this case, the Claimant sought to challenge the Defendant's decision of 26 October 2010 to refuse to treat further submissions that he had made as amounting to a fresh claim.
(2) The Claimant arrived in the UK on 6 August 2005. He made a claim for asylum on the day of his arrival and this was rejected on 8 September 2005. The Claimant appealed, but his appeal was dismissed. The Immigration Judge found him not to be a credible witness. The Court also failed to comply with his bail conditions. Between July and October 2010, a series of fresh representations were made on behalf of the Claimant, all of which were rejected by the Defendant.
(3) The Claimant submitted that incorrect weight had been placed on his credibility and the Defendant had not considered the relevant country guidance.
(4) HELD: The Court held that this hearing would deal only with the preliminary issue of whether the Defendant had erred in law in failing to accept the Claimant's submissions as a fresh claim.
(5) The Court held that the Defendant was entitled to place significant weight upon letters from the Claimant and his history of dishonesty. The Court further found that the Defendant had correctly considered the relevant country guidance applicable to this case.
(6) Having applied anxious scrutiny, the Court was satisfied that the Defendant was entitled to conclude that the Claimant's appeal had no realistic prospect of success. As such, it was held that the Defendant had not erred in failing to treat the Claimant's representations as a fresh claim.
 - Dishonesty.
 - Relevant guidance.
 - Anxious scrutiny.
 - Conclusion.
Keeping you up to date with the latest developments in education law.