Fresh claims

Source:Free Movement

This is becoming something of a hot topic, no doubt because of the number of Sri Lankan and Zimbabwean fresh claims that have been made recently because of changed circumstances in those two countries. The Court of Appeal has just issued a judgment on the interpretation of paragraph 353 of the immigration rules, and it is actually quite a helpful one: R (on the application of AK (Sri Lanka)) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 447. I wish Lord Justice Laws had been as helpful to me when I was in the Court of Appeal last week, but as will shortly be public record, he most certainly was not.

The court holds (i) ‘further submissions’ under paragraph 353 just means representations, whether they be ’short or long, reasoned or unreasoned, advanced on asylum or human rights grounds’, (ii) that no particular form is required to advance further submissions and they can be a different type of claim or merely be new facts to support a claim that has already been advanced and (iii) that the ultimate test is whether there is more than a ‘fanciful prospect of success.’