Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Tribunal interprets spouse extension rule on overstay, required documents and language certificate


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


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

The Upper Tribunal interprets spouse extension rule paragraph 284 on overstay and valid applications, required documents and whether an old English language certificate is sufficient in a refreshingly realistic and enabling determination:

(i) The correct construction of paragraph 284(iv) of the Immigration Rules is that the applicant has a period of 28 days within which to make an extension of stay application, measured from the date immediately following the last day of leave in the United Kingdom.

(ii) The purported requirement in Form FLR(M) that an application for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a spouse be supported by certain correspondence in specified terms is unlawful.

(iii) The requirement previously enshrined in paragraph 284(ix)(a) of the Immigration Rules that an applicant provide an English Language test certificate in specified terms is satisfied where the applicant has already provided a certificate of this kind to the Secretary of State which has been accepted as valid.

(iv) The jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal in judicial review proceedings to determine any of the issues raised is not extinguished by the Secretary of State’s withdrawal of the decision under challenge: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem[1999] AC 450 applied.

Source: Bhudia, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (para 284(iv) and (ix)) (IJR) [2016] UKUT 25 (IAC) (2 December 2015)

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.