Pankina, Tribunal Cases, Judicial Review, and Overseas Applicants

The Pankina judgment or “AP (Russia)” – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719 – was a big blow to the Home Secretary and its manifestations are reflected in emergent case law. In R (on the application of English UK Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1726 (Admin), Foskett J accepted the claimant’s principal submission that the change in the minimum level of English language tuition permitted ought to have been introduced by a change to the immigration rules and was not capable of being introduced by a change in the UKBA’s policy guidance. In making this submission the claimant had placed reliance in Pankina. This article examines the effects of Pankina in the decision making of the courts concerned with immigration law.

Foskett J concurred with the claimant’s principal submission because the UKBA unlawfully amended the minimum level at which foreign students could enrol for English courses in the UK from Level A2 of the Common European Framework for Reference for Languages (CEFR) to Level B1. The objective was met by amending the UKBA’s policy guidance and not by introducing the change directly into the immigration rules. Foskett J, in his judgment in English (at [74] to [77]), concluded that Pankina was of wider application than being restricted to the 3-month maintenance requirementunder the tier system.

The decisions of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (“the Tribunal”) subsequent to Pankina and English exhibit the gravity of the situation for the UKBA which will continue to face legal challenges because of Sedley LJ’s masterful deconstruction of the constitutional principles which included the supremacy of parliament itself. If the Home Secretary could singlehanded add conditions to the immigration rules (approved by Parliament) by using policy guidance, then surely using such a mechanism allowed the Home Secretary to bypass Parliament itself which was the supreme law maker. Moreover, in recognition of seriousness of the issue the Court of Appeal denied leave to the Home Secretary to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. After seeking the right legal advice it emerged that the Home Secretary gave up on seeking leave from the Supreme Court itself to appeal the decision and she introduced the changes in the rules themselves on 22 July 2010.

In CDS Brazil [2010] UKUT 305 (IAC) the Tribunal found that since a modification to the rules via policy guidance prevented the appellant from obtaining an extension of her visa it was a disproportionate interference with her “private life that deserved respect as long as she continued to meet the other requirements of the Rules and make appropriate progress in her course of studies here.”

Similarly the case of FA and AA (PBS: effect of Pankina) Nigeria [2010] UKUT 00304 (IAC) related to whether or not a person other than the applicant herself could hold the funds required for leave to remain to be extended under the Tier 4 student category. In this case the appellants were a couple from Nigeria. The husband’s visa was granted as a dependant of his student wife whose studies he supported. Again the Tribunal found that the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pankina is not limited to the ‘three-month rule’ in relation to evidence of funds and that policy guidance does not have the status of immigration rules for the purposes of immigration appeals.

Mr CMG Ockelton found that:

“[t]here is no question that the funds existed at all material times in sufficient quantity and that the husband made the funds available to the wife for the purpose of supporting her during the studies … This is not even a case of third-party support, as for many purposes husband and wife may be regard as a single entity with mutual obligations.”

In the wake of Pankina the UKBA has decided to reconsider applications which were affected by the judgment. These were divided into in-country applications which are given the right to be reconsidered until 22 July 2010 and overseas applications which were given the same right but only between 23 June 2010 and 22 July 2010. No great analysis needs to advanced to make the point that this policy is decidedly discriminatory.

However, the rules of natural justice and fairness require that there can be no discrimination in law between the type of applicant who is awarded the right to reconsideration for a decision which the Home Secretary wrongly made: it should be mandatory for her to fix the injustice of the wrong which cannot be achieved by discriminating between applicants in a geographic and chronological manner.

The discrimination which is evidenced in the relief policy introduced by the UKBA subsequent to Pankina is comparable in its inceptive flaws to the policy guidance which in the first instance sought to modify the immigration rules without the consent of Parliament and therefore birthed Pankina. Given that fact it is only inevitable that for many years to come there should be a plethora of viable judicial review claims by overseas applicants who were not granted visas for lack of funds because of the Administrative Courts’ amenability to hearing claims where the claimant was unaware of their potential claim and therefore unable to bring it in time.

About Asad Ali Khan, BA, MSc, MA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M

Senior Partner, Khan & Co, Barristers-at-Law
This entry was posted in AP (Russia), Article 8, Cases, Constitution, Court of Appeal, ECHR, Immigration Law, Immigration Rules, Judicial Review, Nigeria, Pankina, Tier 1, Tier 2 and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Pankina, Tribunal Cases, Judicial Review, and Overseas Applicants

  1. asadakhan says:

    Not sure how long it will take which country are you in?

  2. Max says:

    I fell a victim of Home Office’s wrong decision and have just found out about the Pankina case and i fall in the same category as far as the remedies ar concerned. The problem is, I have only known about this this month, Nov, 2011 and the deadline for the remedy was June 2011. I sent a letter to Home Office for a reconcideration also explain to them that I did not know anything about the remedy arrangement as I did not receive any email, letter from them as a victim. They have rejected the request saying that the deadline for this was June 2011 and have applied late. Do you think i should take them to court as it was their mistake in the first place? and also that they didn’t directly and individualy inform the victims? They announced the remedy on their website, so they expect everyone to visit their website everyday? Is this fair to victims who were not aware of the remedy? Is there any law to back this fairness? Please help? Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.