RK (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This is a renewed oral application for permission to appeal in relation to an application for discretionary leave to remain brought by the appellant, Mr Khan. Mr Khan emphasises to me that he has lived in this country some eight years. He has been employed here and paid his taxes. He says that he is engaged to be married and has developed a private life here.

The present application is brought by way of seeking permission to bring a second appeal. Accordingly, it is the second appeals test which I have to apply. I have to look to see whether there is an important point of practice or principle to which the appeal would give rise or if there is some other compelling reason for granting permission to appeal.

By way of brief summary, the background is that Mr Khan came here a student with leave but now wishes to stay on. He was married here, but he maintains that the marriage broke down in circumstances where he was subjected to domestic violence. The First-tier Tribunal looked with care at the evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that it was not in fact the domestic violence in the case which caused the breakdown in the marriage but rather that Mr Khan’s wife was having an affair and the marriage broke down for that reason.

The Upper Tribunal could discern no error of law on the part of the First-tier Tribunal and dismissed Mr Khan’s appeal based on his Convention rights and the domestic violence policy of the Secretary of State. Sir Maurice Kay refused permission to appeal to this court on the papers, applying the second appeals test, but he also expressed the view that, even on the ordinary test for permission to appeal, the appeal had no real prospect of success.

I have explained to Mr Khan the stringency of the test which I have to apply and that my hands are tied by the legal rules which are applicable here. Applying those rules, I have to say that I agree with the assessment made by Sir Maurice Kay on the papers in this case.

The appeal has no real prospect of success; still less is it an appeal which satisfies the second appeals test. The case turns essentially on the First-tier Tribunal’s assessment of the relevant facts. The tribunals below have applied the correct principles in addressing this case. This appeal gives rise to no important point of principle or practice and there is no other compelling reason for permission to appeal to be granted. Accordingly, I dismiss this application.