Immigration Officer Heathrow v. Ramzi Sami Obeid

Immigration Officer Heathrow v Ramzi Sami Obeid

Queen's Bench Division

[1986] Imm AR 341

Hearing Date: 11 June 1986

11 June 1986

Index Terms:

Visitor -- refusal of entry -- the proper directions to be given where an adjudicator allows an appeal against refusal of entry or entry clearance in respect of a visitor. Immigration Act 1971 s 19(3)

Held:

The facts in issue are set out in the determination. Held: 1. Where an appeal is allowed against refusal of entry clearance in respect of a visitor application, it is inappropriate to give directions for the issue of entry clearance. 2. In these circumstances the adjudicator should go no further than declaring that the refusal was unjustified.

Counsel:

AR Thomas for the appellant. The respondent did not appear and was not represented. PANEL: Professor DC Jackson (Vice-President); GJ Brown Esq JP; Major RAK MacAllan MC

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL. The immigration officer, Heathrow, appeals against a decision of an adjudicator (GW Gann Esq) allowing the appeal of Ramzi Sami Obeid against the refusal of entry as a visitor. The immigration officer was given leave to appeal to the Tribunal only in respect of the adjudicator's direction that "the appropriate entry clearance be issued". By letters dated 12 May 1986 the respondent and his solicitors were both notified of the date and place of hearing, but there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. We therefore decided that we should hear the appeal in the absence of the respondent. The only issue before us concerns the direction of the adjudicator when following the allowing of the appeal he directed the issue of "the appropriate entry clearance". As the Tribunal has said on many occasions, the problem with such a direction is that time has gone by. In this case the decision was taken on 20 April 1985 in regard to an application to visit the United Kingdom for a stay of up to two months from that date. Clearly the lack of justification of refusal of entry for a proposed visit made for expressed purposes on a different date cannot entitle a person to entry clearance for a visit made at a different time when indeed the purposes themselves may have changed. Even assuming the purposes to remain the same, a proposed visitor must satisfy the immigration officer as to maintenance and accommodation and his ability to meet the costs of return or onward journeys. In all the circumstances of visit cases, in the Tribunal's view the normal consequences of the allowing of appeal are simply a finding that the refusal of entry was unjustified. The appeal is allowed insofar and only insofar as we declare that the adjudicator erred in directing that an entry clearance be issued. We substitute for that direction a declaration that the refusal of entry was unjustified.

DISPOSITION:

Appeal allowed as to directions

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.