The Court of Appeal’s judgment on the Asylum Policy Instruction (Dependants and Former Dependants)

The Court of Appeal’s judgment on the Asylum Policy Instruction (Dependants and Former Dependants)


CategoryNews Author Zane Malik Date

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Dingemans) hands down its judgment in Chandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 634.

The key issue before the Court concerned the proper interpretation of paragraph 3.8 of the Asylum Policy Instruction (Dependants and Former Dependants). The Appellant’s case, in short, was that paragraph 3.8 of the Asylum Policy Instruction (Dependants and Former Dependants), properly constructed, required the Secretary of State for the Home Department to treat him as his mother’s dependant for the purpose of the further submissions made by her, despite the fact that he was an adult. The Appellant argued that the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal had misconstrued paragraph 3.8 of the Asylum Policy Instruction (Dependants and Former Dependants) in dismissing his appeals.

The Court of Appeal, dismissing the Appellant’s appeal, at paragraph 23, held that:

“If, at the time that the further submissions are submitted, the former dependant has turned 18 (as was the case here since the appellant was 18 when his mother’s further submissions were submitted on 28 August 2008), the former dependant must make his or her own application in their own right.”

The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant’s proposed interpretation of paragraph 3.8 of the Asylum Policy Instruction (Dependants and Former Dependants) was wrong, and that the decisions made below were correct.

The Court of Appeal also held that the approach adopted by the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal as to the issue of delay in relation to a claim based on Article 8 disclosed no error of law.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.

Zane Malik appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The Court’s judgment is available here.


Related Barristers


Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email