Significant procedural errors by the Court of Appeal have overshadowed the serious missteps of the claimant’s legal team in an immigration case.
- Lord Justice Dingemans issues an apology on behalf of the Court of Appeal for the oversight leading to delays.
- The case involved Arifuzzaman Rana, whose appeal for indefinite leave to remain faced a nearly four-year delay.
- A combination of the legal team’s non-compliance and the court’s administrative errors contributed to the delay.
- Despite granting an extension of time, the permission to appeal was ultimately refused.
In a recent immigration case, the Court of Appeal has found itself at the centre of a procedural debacle, overshadowing the initial errors committed by the claimant’s lawyers. The case, which involved claimant Arifuzzaman Rana, saw a lengthy delay due to the court’s failure to promptly seal the appellant’s notice. Lord Justice Dingemans has publicly apologised for these lapses, pointing to significant administrative oversights within the court offices.
Mr Rana, originally from Bangladesh and residing in the UK since 2007, faced a setback when his application for indefinite leave to remain was refused by the Home Office in 2018. The First-tier Tribunal upheld this decision, and the Upper Tribunal also refused to allow a judicial review. As Mr Rana’s legal team attempted to appeal to the Court of Appeal, they failed to follow procedural rules, which required the submission of a sealed order and supporting skeleton argument.
The legal team’s initial failing occurred when they submitted an appellant’s notice on 5 August 2020 without the necessary accompanying documents. This oversight coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, which further complicated processing delays. The Court of Appeal office did not issue the appellant’s notice, informing Mr Rana’s solicitors months later about their requirement to file the appeal bundle after receipt of the sealed document.
Subsequent missteps in communication led to further delays. The appellant’s notice was filed anew only after more than a year, owing to the office’s inability to locate the original application documents. These compounded errors led to a delay extending close to four years before the notice was finally sealed in May 2024.
While the legal representatives bore responsibility for their lapses, Lord Justice Dingemans acknowledged that the administrative failures of the Court of Appeal were decisive in causing the protracted delay. Despite extending the deadline for filing, the court ultimately declined to grant permission for Mr Rana’s appeal.
The intertwined errors of both the claimant’s legal team and the Court of Appeal highlight serious procedural challenges within the judicial system.
