Secretary of State for the Home Department v Da Silva Pinho

Subject Matter

IMMIGRATION — Deportation — Appeal — Secretary of State issuing stage 1 decision notice in respect of intended deportee — Secretary of State subsequently issuing further deportation decision refusing human rights claim — Notice of appeal filed only in respect of stage 1 notice — First-tier Tribunal nonetheless determining human rights claim and allowing appeal on that ground — Whether First-tier Tribunal having jurisdiction to determine human rights appeal — Whether having power to waive procedural requirement to file notice of appeal for each decision to be considered — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 8 — Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c 41), s 82 — Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/2604), rr 6, 19 — Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/61), reg 8

[2025] UKUT 317 (IAC); [2025] WLR(D) 500, UT

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In the Upper Tribunal, the Secretary of State for the Home Office appealed a First-tier Tribunal decision that had allowed Hamilton Jorge Da Silva Pinho's human rights claim against deportation. The Upper Tribunal determined that the First-tier Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the human rights appeal, as the appellant had only filed a notice regarding a prior deportation decision. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision and remitted the case for proper consideration, permitting the appellant to submit new notices of appeal.

Issues

• Did the First-tier Tribunal have the jurisdiction to consider the human rights appeal when the appellant only filed a notice of appeal for the deportation decision under the Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020?
• Was the judge's application of the 'unduly harsh' test under s117C (5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 adequate, given the appellant's history of violent behaviour and the lack of supporting evidence for the claims made?
• Did the judge err in his case management by allowing the appeal to proceed on human rights grounds without a proper notice of appeal being filed for that specific decision?

Commentary

Free Movement
Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider human rights appeal where no notice filed Case comment