The case of MY (Pakistan) v SSHD considered when a "refusal decision" constitutes a "refusal of a human rights claim" for the purpose of the Immigration Act 2014. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to remain and a "human rights claim" are conceptually different things, serving different purposes. The former is the mechanism by which the Secretary of State may be required to grant leave to remain, while the latter is a claim that the claimant's removal would be contrary to their Convention rights.
The Court of Appeal found that the Secretary of State had not refused the appellant's human rights claim because the appellant had not made a valid human rights claim in the first place. The appellant had used the SET(DV) form, which does not attract the right of appeal, and had not explicitly raised a human rights claim in his application.
The Court of Appeal's decision has important practical implications for immigration practitioners. It means that applicants must use the specified application form in immigration applications if they want to be sure of having appeal rights. It also means that applicants must explicitly raise a human rights claim in their application if they want to be sure that the Secretary of State will consider the claim.
The Court of Appeal's decision is a reminder of the importance of careful and accurate drafting of immigration applications. Applicants who are unsure of how to make a human rights claim should seek advice from an immigration practitioner.