Khan (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0033

Parties

Appellant(s)

Ferdous Alam Khan

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Did the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal err in holding that the First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in upholding a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the appellant indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom? Did the First-tier Tribunal err in law by failing to follow the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance?

Facts

The appellant, Mr Khan, is a national of Bangladesh. He entered the United Kingdom on 5 July 2009 with a valid entry clearance as a student, valid until 30 June 2012. That leave was extended on several occasions. On 28 May 2015, his student leave was curtailed. The appellant made various applications for a European Economic Area (“EEA”) residence card, which were refused. The appellant also made applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, which were also rejected. On 30 March 2022, the appellant applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. That application was refused by the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) on 26 April 2023, and this decision has been the subject of the appeals below. The decision letter recorded that the appellant did not qualify under the relevant paragraphs of the Immigration Rules. It also noted that SSHD had given consideration to whether the refusal of the application and removal of the appellant from the United Kingdom would involve a breach of the appellant’s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). SSHD decided that refusal of the application would not involve a breach of the appellant’s rights under Article 8, and that there were no other exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of leave outside the Immigration Rules. The appellant appealed against the SSHD’s decision to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”). In a decision promulgated on 5 March 2024, the FTT dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) against the FTT’s decision, principally on the ground that the FTT had erred in failing to follow the “Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance” (“the Guidance Note”), which applies to proceedings in the FTT. The UT held it was satisfied that the appellant fell within the definition of a vulnerable witness. However, the UT was not satisfied that the failure of the judge to specifically refer to the Guidance rendered the appeal procedurally unfair nor infected the judge’s view of the evidence. Accordingly, the UT dismissed the appeal. The appellant appealed against the UT’s decision to the Court of Appeal (“CA”). The CA also dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.