Visit JCPCUKSC/2026/0018
•
IMMIGRATION
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v The First-tier Tribunal (Asylum Support) (Respondent)
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2026/0018
Parties
Appellant(s)
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent(s)
First-tier Tribunal (Asylum Support)
Issue
Whether the AST has jurisdiction (i) in an appeal under section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA”) to consider the merits or legality of a decision by the SSHD to deem an individual’s claim for asylum withdrawn and (ii) to hear appeals purportedly brought pursuant to section 103(2) of the IAA by individuals whose support under section 95 of the IAA is discontinued following a decision deeming their asylum claim withdrawn.
Facts
MAH is a national of Sudan who claimed asylum in September 2021. He was granted asylum support subject to conditions, including that he attend any interviews absent good reason not to do so. In November 2022, he instructed the Migrant Law Partnership (“MLP”) to act for him. The Home Office invited him to an asylum interview via a letter and email sent to MLP on 2 October 2023. The Home Office sought an explanation for his non-attendance by a letter at his hotel and an email to MLP, advising that his claim for asylum would be withdrawn unless he provided an acceptable reason. Following his failure to respond to the letter, the Home Office stated that his application had been withdrawn and that he no longer qualified for support under section 95 of the IAA. While the letter provided that there is no right to appeal against this decision, he appealed to the FTT under section 103(2) IAA. LKL is a national of China who claimed asylum in February 2022. He was provided with support until February 2024. He was absent from his hotel for periods prior to and immediately after the birth of his son in October 2023. On 18 November 2023, he returned to his hotel to find that his belongings had been removed. There was a letter dated 1 October 2023 inviting him to an interview on 12 October 2023. A second letter dated 14 November 2023 informed him that his claim had been withdrawn because he had failed to attend an interview. On 22 November 2023, LKL emailed the Home Office explaining the reason for his non-attendance and requested a review of the withdrawal decision. The Home Office replied that the decision was maintained. In February 2024, LKL applied for support for himself, his fiancée and his son. This application was refused. LKL appealed it under section 103(1) IAA. GK is a national of India who claimed asylum in December 2019. In January 2020, asylum support was granted for her and her two minor children, subject to conditions, including that she attend any interview absent good reason not to do so. In November 2022, she instructed solicitors. In October 2023, the Home Officer wrote to GK, not copied to her solicitor, inviting her to an interview on 1 November 2023. The letter was returned to sender, marked “addressee gone away”. On 1 November 2023 the Home Office contacted her by telephone to ask about her non-attendance. She told the caller that she did not know about the interview and still lived at the same address. A letter from the Home Office on 1 November 2023 was also retuned to sender, marked in the same way. On 15 November 2023, the Home Office wrote to GK, saying that her asylum claim had been withdrawn due to her failure to attend the interview without reasonable explanation. In February 2023, the Home Office wrote to GK advising that she no longer qualified for support under the IAA. While the letter provided that there is no right to appeal against this decision, she appealed to the AST under section 103(2) IAA. The AST decided that it has jurisdiction in respect of appeals under section 103(1)-(2A) of the IAA. The Administrative Court (“AC”) dismissed the SSHD’s claim for judicial review. The Court of Appeal dismissed the SSHD’s appeal against the AC’s decision. The SSHD now appeals to the Supreme Court.
Date of issue
18 February 2026
Case origin
PTA
