Chambers, R (on the application of) v Entry Clearance Officer Kingston & Ors

After an appeal against refusal of entry clearance has succeeded without a direction requiring issue of a visa, the entry clearance officer may make brief inquiries to confirm that the applicant still wishes to travel and that circumstances have not materially changed. A request for up-to-date evidence and a short interview is lawful where it follows established procedure and is directed to identifying material changes unknown to the appellate tribunal. Such a request is not irrational or discriminatory merely because the evidence was previously considered.

The claimant, a Jamaican national, applied for entry clearance to visit the United Kingdom. The application was refused under paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules because the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that she would leave at the end of her visit.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal allowed her appeal but gave no direction under section 87 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 requiring the visa to be issued. The entry clearance officer then asked for current evidence and a brief interview to establish whether circumstances had changed. The claimant sought judicial review, alleging that the request was irrational, discriminatory and unfair.

1. The claim was refused. There was nothing irrational or unlawful in the entry clearance officer’s request for up-to-date evidence and a brief interview.
2. Where an appeal has been allowed but the appellate tribunal has given no direction under section 87 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, established entry-clearance procedure permits the officer to confirm that the applicant still wishes to travel and to ascertain whether circumstances have changed.
3. The entry clearance should generally be issued unless there has been a significant material change of circumstances since the refusal, of which the appellate tribunal would have been unaware, or a material circumstance has emerged of which it would have been unaware. The procedure should not ordinarily become a detailed reconsideration of matters already decided.
4. The claimant’s request for further documents did not discriminate against her and was not irrational. It was a bureaucratic safeguard established for good reason. The appropriate course was to comply with the request and provide current evidence confirming the matters relied upon before the tribunal.
5. The court nevertheless observed that the presenting officer should ordinarily remind the immigration judge of the power to give directions under section 87. Had that occurred, a direction requiring issue of the visa would probably have avoided the subsequent dispute.
6. The defendant was awarded costs assessed at £1,030 plus VAT, subject to written objection within 14 days.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The claimant’s appeal against refusal of entry clearance was allowed on 11 August 2006. No direction was given requiring issue of the visa.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for permission for judicial review was refused.