R (LA (Albania)) v Secretary of State for the Home Departmen...

Facts

• The case concerned an immigration appeal involving new evidence presented in a human rights claim before the Upper Tribunal (UT).
• The appellant relied on additional proof at the UT stage that had not been submitted to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT).
• The Court of Appeal considered whether the UT had acted correctly in admitting and acting upon this new evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the FTt's authority to decide facts extends to considering new evidence not previously submitted to the Secretary of State.
2. Whether the UT is permitted to determine facts afresh on appeal, particularly in light of new evidence.
3. To what extent the principles established in Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00702 restrict revisiting previously determined facts.
4. Whether the UT erred in admitting and relying on purportedly new evidence that did not meet the criteria for reconsidering settled findings.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal determined that the UT had wrongly allowed new evidence that was not, in fact, new or sufficiently significant.
• The decision clarified that appellants are required to present their complete case, including all relevant evidence, to the FtT at first instance.
• The Court reinforced that the UT's role in revisiting facts is limited and must follow established guidance.
• The UT should exercise caution in reconsidering factual matters previously settled, particularly where there is no compelling new evidence.

Legal Principles

• Section 85(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows the FtT to consider any evidence, even if not previously presented to the Secretary of State.
• The FtT has broad, but procedurally bound, powers to determine facts and admit evidence.
• The Devaseelan guidelines require that prior findings of fact are not revisited by later judges unless cogent reasons exist, such as the emergence of significant, genuinely new evidence or a clear legal error in the earlier decision.
• The UT’s primary role is to identify legal errors in the FtT’s decisions, rather than to redetermine facts or admit further evidence except in exceptional circumstances.
• Appellants bear the responsibility to present all relevant material to the FtT, as late evidence will only exceptionally justify reopening earlier findings.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R (LA (Albania)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department established clear parameters for fact-finding in immigration appeals, confirming the primacy of the FtT, the restricted remit of the UT in making factual determinations, and the robust application of the Devaseelan guidelines to ensure efficiency and consistency in the appeals process.