Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that, before it refuses a settlement application when a person has been dishonest, the Home Office has to:
- Let the applicant know they intend to refuse, to allow them a chance to submit more information.
Considering all of the evidence:
- Consider if the applicant was dishonest
- Consider if, even if dishonest, the applicant being in the UK is undesirable
- Consider if, even if both dishonest and undesirable, the applicant should be given leave for any other reason
In the current case, the Home Office refused indefinite leave to remain on the basis that he had been dishonest with HMRC or the Home Office. He had either overstated his earnings to the Home Office or understated them to HMRC. In his appeal against the refusal, the First Tribunal found that he had been dishonest. The judge decided he shouldn’t be removed from the UK as he had a British wife and son, so it was in the son’s best interests for him to remain in the UK. The Home Office granted leave to remain for 30 months but this decision was challenged by way of judicial review, the appellant arguing he should have been given indefinite leave to remain.
In the challenge, it was argued that the proper process was not followed. The Upper Tribunal felt he had had been given the opportunity to explain the discrepancies in his tax returns and Home Office applications. The Home Office was entitled to grant limited leave to remain and the application for judicial review was refused.
Scarsdale Immigration Solicitors
Scarsdale Solicitors Oldham, Scarsdale Solicitors Manchester and Scarsdale Solicitors Rochdale are continually monitoring the evolving COVID19 (Coronavirus) situation and following all guidance and advice that is issued by the NHS, Public Health England and the UK Government. Our Rochdale immigration solicitors, Oldham immigration solicitors and Manchester Immigration solicitors clients can rest assured that we remain open for business to support you at this time.
