Commentary on provisions of the Act Section 53: Special Immigration Appeals Commission
This section makes provision for appeals against a decision to refuse a suspensive claim to be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ("SIAC") rather than the Upper Tribunal where the decision is based on information that should not be disclosed in the public interest.  SIAC is an independent judicial tribunal that can hear immigration appeals where the decision is based on sensitive information, for example where information has been provided by the Security Services.
	Subsection (2) provides for an appeal against a suspensive claim or permission to appeal (in relation to a claim certified as clearly unfounded) to be certified by the Secretary of State where the decision relies on sensitive material that should not be disclosed in (a) the interests of national security; (b) the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country; or (c) the public interest.
	Subsection (3) provides that where the Secretary of State has certified a decision under subsection (2), any pending appeal or permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal lapses.
	Subsection (5) inserts new section 2AA into the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 to provide for an appeal to be heard by SIAC where the Secretary of State has certified the decision under subsection (2). In considering an appeal against the refusal of a suspensive claim and the consideration of new matters that were not available to the Secretary of State, SIAC must follow the same approach as the Upper Tribunal as set out in sections 44(3) to (6) and 48(2) to (8).
	Subsection (5) also inserts new section 2AB into the 1997 Act to provide that the SIAC’s determination about whether there are compelling reasons for the claimant to have not provided details of a new matter to the Secretary of State before the end of the claim period is not subject to review by any other court. This follows the same approach as the Upper Tribunal as set out in section 48. New sections 2AB(3) and (4) further clarifies the extent of the rule and provides for specific exceptions where a challenge can still be brought against a decision. New section 2AB(5) defines decision and supervisory jurisdiction for the purpose of this section.
	Subsection (7) provides for the first set of procedural rules for the SIAC made for the purposes of new section 2AA of the 1997 Act to be made via the made affirmative procedure (rather than, as now, the draft affirmative procedure).