Reply To: Immigration/Statutory review


Thanks for researching that one Pete.

So in summary, there are two reasons for doubting whether s115(9)(d) continues to have any effect:

– first, it refers to provisions that have been repealed and have not been re-enacted in anywhere near a recognisable form. It’s impossible to read across to corresponding provisions in the new appeal structure

– second, even if it were possible to read across in that way, the deeming provision in the old appeal procedure is replaced by an actual real-life extension of leave in the new provisions – this is much stronger and therefore it is less easy for s115(9)(d) to override it.

If s115(9)(d) has had the rug pulled from under it by the 2002 Act, who gains?

It seems to me that the following claimants might now be entitled to remain on benefit:

– those who applied for an extension of leave but were refused
– those whose leave was curtailed on the Homee Secretary’s initiative
– in either case, they could be appealing on the merits of the decision under the immigration rules or they could be appealing by way of becoming an asylum seeker. These are the groups who were excluded under s115(9)(d) and who are arguabkly not excluded any longer.

It won’t help people who never had leave in the first place, including those who allowed their leave to expire before they applied for renewal. They’ll still be caught by s115(9)(a).

Should we be proud of ourselves for sleuthing this one out while the rest of the country apparently plum missed it? Or should we get out more?