Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Pankina upheld by Supreme Court
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
This is huge news in immigration law: the Supreme Court has dismissed the Home Office appeal in Alvi  UKSC 33, upholding the earlier Court of Appeal judgment in Pankina. The press summary can be found here and the full judgment here [here for BAILII version]. This means that substantive requirements in immigration control must be laid before Parliament in the form of proper Immigration Rules under s.3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Attempting to import or incorporate requirements in documents such as ‘policy guidance’ outside the proper rules is unlawful.
This will have huge implications for the awful new immigration rules on family members. At a stroke it almost certainly renders all of the attempts to specify required documents to prove income and so on unlawful, rendering the Appendix FM largely ineffective. Looks like the Home Office lawyers have gambled and lost on this one.
The claimant appeal in Munir  UKSC 32 was, however, dismissed. This concerned whether concessions and policies outside the rules needed to be formally incorporated into the rules. The press summary is here and the full judgment is here [here for BAILII version].
More to follow.