IA128422014

On the 21 st August 2014 the First-tier Tribunal (Judge M. Whalan) allowed his appeal against the Secretary of State�s decision to remove him from the United Kingdom pursuant to s10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The matter in issue in this appeal is whether he had the power to do so.

The Respondent then made an application for leave to remain on human rights grounds. That application was refused on the 17 th March 2014 when he was served with an �IS151B� � a notice of directions to remove. The Secretary of State certified the human rights claim as clearly unfounded under paragraph 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This limited the Respondent�s right of appeal to an out-of-country appeal only.

The Secretary of State now has permission to appeal on the ground that the legal framework allegedly agreed by the parties on the day was in fact wrong. That is because regardless of whether the curtailment notice had ever been served, the IS151A served on the 4 th March 2014 operated to invalidate any leave that the Respondent had previously held. Section 10(8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended by s48 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) reads:

�when a person is notified that a decision has been made to remove him in accordance with this section, the notification invalidates any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom previously given to him�

The validity of the IS151A does not therefore depend on any earlier curtailment. Indeed, it might be observed that if the leave had already been curtailed there would have been no need to serve this document at all. The Respondent therefore submits that the IS151B was perfectly valid, as was the certification, and there was no in-country right of appeal. The Upper Tribunal is requested to find an error of law and remake the decision by finding there to be a want of jurisdiction.