All Articles: paragraph 322(5)

In the case of Ashfaq (Balajigari: appeals) [2020] UKUT 226 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal reiterates its previous findings that First-Tier Tribunal hearings provide appellants with the necessary opportunity to rebut findings of dishonesty by the Home Office. If the Home Office process was unfair, this deficiency is remedied where a...

21st July 2020
BY Nath Gbikpi

Last year, in the important case of Balajigari [2019] EWCA Civ 673, the Court of Appeal ruled that, before refusing a settlement application on the basis that the person applying has been dishonest, the Home Office must: Let the applicant know that they are minded to refuse, and allow them...

28th April 2020
BY Nath Gbikpi

In the case of Tahir Yaseen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 157, the Court of Appeal has reiterated that refusals on the ground of character or conduct require a balancing exercise, taking into account both positive and negative considerations. The appellant, Mr Yaseen, made...

19th February 2020
BY Nath Gbikpi

Following another paragraph 322(5) case, where an applicant was refused indefinite leave to remain on the basis of dishonesty for disclosing different income to HMRC as opposed to the Home Office, the Upper Tribunal has issued guidance on evidence from accountants purporting to take the blame for those tax discrepancies....

27th January 2020
BY Nath Gbikpi

The Home Office has published specific guidance on settlement applications by migrants who previously held Tier 1 (General) leave and who declared different sets of earnings to the Home Office and HMRC. The document must be read alongside the more general guidance published in October, which covers the refusal of...

20th January 2020
BY Nath Gbikpi

The Home Office has issued new policy guidance on when it will refuse applications on the grounds of deception or dishonesty, i.e. where an applicant has made a false representation. The guidance follows a serious defeat in the Court of Appeal earlier this year. In Balajigari v Secretary of State...

14th October 2019
BY Alex Schymyck

The Court of Appeal has handed down a blockbuster judgment on the highly controversial use of paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules to refuse settlement to migrants over alleged tax discrepancies. It says that the Home Office’s stance in these cases is “legally flawed” and needs a major overhaul to...

16th April 2019
BY Nath Gbikpi

Since January 2015, 1,700 settlement applications from Tier 1 (General) migrants have been refused under paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules, primarily due to discrepancies between earnings declared to HMRC and to the Home Office at the time of making an application. During that time, the higher courts in England...

16th January 2019
BY Bilaal Shabbir

In R (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dishonesty, tax return, paragraph 322(5)) [2018] UKUT 384 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal has issued guidance to the Home Office on how to properly decide applications from Tier 1 (General) applicants which raise issues of dishonesty under paragraph 322(5) of...

26th November 2018
BY John Vassiliou

I am quoted in a recent Guardian story about the notorious, if niche, paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules. This is the rule being used to refuse leave to remain to migrants because of alleged discrepancies between their tax returns to HMRC and the income declared to the Home Office...

28th August 2018
BY Colin Yeo

Back in January, we wrote about the case of Dr Syed Kazmi, a foreign doctor due to be removed from the UK because of a “HMRC tax issue” disqualifying him from settlement. Since then, many more refusals of settlement applications by highly skilled migrants — declined because of discrepancies between...

30th May 2018
BY Nath Gbikpi
Or become a member of Free Movement today
Verified by MonsterInsights