R (on the application of Chowdhury) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0106

Parties

Appellant(s)

Sadia Afroz Chowdhury

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD)

Upper Tribunal

Issue

(1) Where the High Court’s jurisdiction for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) is not excluded by Section 11A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, can it nevertheless refuse permission on the basis that the claim has no prospect of success? (2) Does section 117B(4) of the Nationality and Immigration Asylum Act 2002 extend to adult dependent relatives?

Facts

The appellant, Ms Chowdhury, is a citizen of Bangladesh. Ms Chowdhury arrived in the United Kingdom on 15 February 2010 with entry clearance as a student. Ms Chowdhury made applications to remain in the UK as an extended family member. On 2 March 2020, the Secretary of State refused her claim. Ms Chowdhury appealed to the First-tier tribunal (“FTT”) arguing that refusing her application to remain in the UK would breach her to right to family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), due to her relationship with her uncle, Dr Alam. Ms Chowdhury has lived with Dr Alam for over eight years and provides him with day-to-day care. On 28 March 2022, the FTT dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no family life between Dr Alam and Ms Chowdhury for the purposes of article 8, particularly given section 117B(4) of the Nationality and Immigration Asylum Act 2002, which states that in an application like this little weight should be given to the applicant’s private life and their “relationship with a qualifying partner”. On 18 June 2022, Ms Chowdhury made an application for permission to appeal. On 4 November 2022, while that application was pending, Ms Chowdhury filed supplementary grounds of appeal arguing that the FTT’s conclusion was flawed. On 23 November 2022, the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) refused permission to appeal, but due to an administrative error, did not address the appellant’s supplementary grounds. Ms Chowdhury challenged the Upper Tribunal’s decision by way of judicial review in the High Court. Section 11A(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) imposes a bar on the High Court to hear such judicial review claims, but section 11A(4) provides that this does not apply where there has been a breach of natural justice. Ms Chowdhury argued that the failure of the UT to consider her supplementary grounds was a breach of natural justice. The High Court refused permission, holding that, even if it had jurisdiction, Ms Chowdhury had no reasonable prospect of success due to the weakness of her article 8 claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Chowdhury’s appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the High Court. Ms Chowdhury now appeals to the Supreme Court.