Court of Appeal dismisses immigration appeal

Court of Appeal dismisses immigration appeal

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of Rajasekhar and Vinoda Tammina against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), concerning the procedural fairness of an immigration decision. The case, heard by Lord Justice Males, Lord Justice Arnold, and Lord Justice Snowden, centred on whether the SSHD's decision to refuse Mr. Tammina's application for leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) migrant was procedurally unfair.

The appeal arose from a decision made by the SSHD on 8 February 2018, which refused Mr. Tammina's application for leave to remain in the UK. The refusal was based on the revocation of his sponsoring employer's licence, Ratna Marble and Granites, which had occurred on 22 December 2017. Mr. Tammina argued that he was not informed of this revocation in a timely manner, thus rendering the decision procedurally unfair.

The case drew heavily on the precedent set in R (Pathan) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 41, where the Supreme Court held that the SSHD had acted with procedural unfairness by failing to notify a migrant promptly about the revocation of their sponsor's licence. However, the Court of Appeal found that the circumstances of Mr. Tammina's case were distinguishable from Pathan.

Lord Justice Snowden, delivering the leading judgment, noted that Mr. Tammina was aware of issues with his sponsor's licence well before the final decision on his application. He had been interviewed during a compliance visit to Ratna's premises and knew that the licence had been suspended. This prior knowledge, according to the court, afforded Mr. Tammina an opportunity to address his situation, unlike in Pathan where the applicant had no knowledge of the revocation until after his application was refused.

The court also highlighted that Mr. Tammina had been involved in discussions with Ratna regarding the suspension of its licence and was aware of the jeopardy facing his application. This awareness, coupled with the fact that the revocation of Ratna's licence was partly due to concerns about the genuineness of Mr. Tammina's role, further distinguished his case from Pathan.

Lord Justice Snowden concluded that the SSHD had no obligation to notify Mr. Tammina of the revocation of Ratna's licence, as he was already aware of the issues that led to its suspension. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Upper Tribunal, which had also found no procedural unfairness in the SSHD's actions.

This ruling underscores the importance of applicants being proactive in addressing potential issues with their immigration status, particularly when aware of problems with their sponsor's compliance. The decision also clarifies the circumstances under which procedural fairness requires notification of a sponsor's licence revocation.

Learn More

For more information on immigration law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Immigration Law.