Immigration Judge hammered for “serious errors” in unprecedented decision

A high-powered panel of 3 Upper Tribunal Judges took the unusual step of grouping together 13 appeals against the same judge because the same disturbing errors kept recurring in his appeals (see the clunkily named and quietly released case of AA069062014 & Ors. [2017] UKAITUR AA069062014).

This has clearly been building for some time. Judge Majid’s misdeeds include:

• using the same out-dated authority in 13 different cases but getting the principles of it so badly wrong that it was unclear if he had even read or remembered it;
• including an highly obscure and unintelligible paragraph word for word (or almost) in each case;
• making hazardous, inappropriate and irrelevant remarks such as: “the current fiscal crisis cannot allow judges to permit people to remain in the UK when British citizens need jobs”;
• failing to set out the relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules (or give the impression that he was aware of what they Rules were);
• Getting basic legal principles wrong and reaching the opposite conclusion to established authorities (in a number of different areas of the law);
• Misunderstanding his role as a Tribunal Judge and the interaction between the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the decision-making powers of the Secretary of State;
• Failing to check his own judgments for grammatical errors;
• Basically making it all up as he went along while claiming to have studied the law and facts with great care;
• Conducting hearings in a shambolic and at times aggressive manner, resulting in complaints even by those who had won their appeals.

One of several crescendos is found at § 47:

nobody should assume that Judge Majid has an adequate knowledge of the law or of his task as a judge. If his decisions continue to have the features we have identified in the foregoing examination, they are clearly open to criticism.

Whether Judge Majid, who is blind and aided by an assistant, will do the right thing and avoid such errors in future cases seems unlikely. All advisors appearing before the Judge should have this case and its concerns at the front of their minds.