Visit visa application wrongly refused four times by Home Office

An applicant has successfully challenged the refusal of a visitor visa in an unreported judicial review decision by the Upper Tribunal. The case is R (Shajna Begum) v Entry Clearance Officer JR-2024-LON-003343.

Background

The applicant sought to enter the UK as a visitor to provide her pregnant cousin with support as she was due to give birth on 14 January 2024. She applied for entry clearance on 5 December 2023.

At the time of the application, her two children were aged 13 and 14 and she lived with them and her husband in Bangladesh. The applicant said that she was self-employed and that her job was “home owner”. Her annual income was BDT 480,000, relating to rental receipts for a property she jointly owned, and she had savings of over £10,000.

The application was refused on 19 December 2023 on the basis that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that she was a genuine visitor and would leave at the end of her visit. The decision maker was not satisfied that “the applicant has any significant personal ties to her country of residence”.

A pre action letter was sent on 4 January 2024 and the refusal was withdrawn and then remade on 2 February 2024. The second refusal led to a second pre action letter and the second refusal was also then withdrawn.

A third refusal was issued on 6 March 2024 and a judicial review was lodged and then settled by consent order on 15 August 2024 following a grant of permission. The respondent agreed to reconsider the decision.

Fourth refusal and second judicial review

The application was refused for a fourth time on 4 October 2024 and a second judicial review lodged on 4 December 2024. In the grant of permission, the Upper Tribunal judge identified the issues as being “around the transactions into the applicant’s two bank accounts; and her wider ties, both economically and due to familial relationships in Bangladesh, not least with her husband and two minor children.” The judge noted that previous pre-action correspondence had addressed these points and said:

it is at least arguable that the respondent failed to consider the subsequent explanations, which predated the impugned decision relating to the cash deposits of the rental income, and familial ties which included not only the applicant’s husband and children, but also numerous other relatives (23 claimed nephews and nieces in Bangladesh). The arguable failure to consider material which was relevant to the applicant’s intentions also arguably rendered the respondent’s refusal of entry clearance at least arguably irrational.

In addition to arguing that the failure to consider the explanations provided in earlier pre action correspondence, the applicant submitted that the reasons given for determining that the applicant was not a genuine visitor were unsustainable on Wednesbury principles.

The Upper Tribunal noted that:

The respondent’s skeleton does not address the applicant’s assertion that the respondent was required to consider the material provided in February 2024 PAP correspondence which pre-dated the impugned decision. Simply put, the respondent’s case set out in the respondent’s skeleton is that the decision-maker did indeed plainly consider the PAP correspondence of 15 February 2025.

Two days before the hearing, the applicant’s representatives sought disclosure from the respondent of evidence that the pre action letter had been send to the decision maker, and evidence that it was properly taken into account. The response from the entry clearance officer was:

…. I can confirm that the PAP letter has been received given the application was then reconsidered on 6/3/2024. Considering our standard reconsideration procedure, I am assuming the contents of the PAP letter were taken into consideration at the time of the assessment. I won’t be able to find the proof of the letter being received as the entire department switched to Poise and we no longer have access to our previous inbox…

The applicant’s representatives were unhappy with the response, in particular the reference to an assumption being made based on the standard procedure. They advised the Government Legal Department that they considered this to be a breach of the duty of candour.

The tribunal had further concerns about the response including the lack of evidence about what the standard procedure was and the reference to a change in IT systems, which indicated a loss of access to at least some historic material (the previous inbox). The tribunal said that the response generated more questions than answers about the decision making process by the entry clearance officer.

It was conceded on behalf of the respondent that if the tribunal made a finding that the letter had not been considered by the decision maker, then the application would succeed in the claim. The tribunal did make this finding, saying that “it is my view that there is no specific indication from the content of the Decision that the February 2024 letter was considered” and that parts of the letter provide “a stronger indication” that it was not considered.

Concerningly, it appears that the entry clearance officer’s assertion that the applicant has no dependents was based on her ticking “no” to the question of whether anyone relies on her for financial support on the application form. This is despite the fact that she has listed her husband and children on the form. As had been explained in the pre action letter, this answer was correct as the family is financially supported by her husband. The tribunal noted that there was no engagement in the refusal letter with other forms of dependency that would be relevant to the assessment of whether she was a genuine visitor, namely the fact that she was the primary carer for two minor children.

The tribunal therefore quashed the decision based on the first ground and did not consider the rationality point. The parties were invited to agree costs, one would assume that the respondent has little ground to stand on in resisting an order to pay the applicant’s costs.

Conclusion

Decision making in visit visa applications is consistently awful and refusals very difficult to challenge given the remedy is an expensive judicial review. Where successful, an applicant can expect to recover their costs, however this is never guaranteed – permission was actually refused on the papers in this case.

So this is a satisfying decision to see, it would be better of course to see better decision making to begin with. Particularly for this applicant, who will presumably end up visiting a toddler instead of being able to support her cousin through the final stages of her pregnancy/early days of parenthood.