Arachchi and Peiris, R (on the application of) v Entry Clearance Officer

In a points-based immigration application, the decision-maker must assess whether the evidence establishes compliance with the Immigration Rules. The decision-maker may reject documentary evidence as unreliable and reach a judgment on the evidence, provided that judgment is exercised reasonably. A requirement that documents be verifiable is distinct from an assessment that documents are unreliable. Where a fresh decision is based on reliability rather than verification, an earlier issue concerning additional requirements in guidance may no longer arise. Judicial review will succeed only if the decision is unlawful or irrational.

The claimants, Sri Lankan nationals, applied for entry clearance as Tier 1 General Migrants. Their applications were initially refused because the Entry Clearance Officer could not verify financial documents supplied to demonstrate the required maintenance funds. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the arguable basis that guidance could not impose requirements additional to the Immigration Rules.

Before the substantive hearing, the Entry Clearance Officer made fresh decisions. Those decisions did not rely on non-verification. They concluded that the documents issued by Industrial Finance Limited were unreliable and therefore did not establish that the claimants possessed the required funds. The central issues were whether the fresh decisions superseded the original decisions and whether the reliability assessment was unlawful or irrational.

1. Fresh decisions. The fresh refusal decisions superseded the original decisions. The challenge to the original decisions was academic, since any successful challenge could have resulted only in their being quashed and remade.
2. Nature of the decision. The Immigration Rules required the claimants to demonstrate the specified maintenance funds and provide the specified documents. The fresh decisions were based on the ECO’s inability to place reliance on the documents as evidence that the funds were present. They were not based on a separate requirement that the documents be verified. Accordingly, the issue identified in Pankina concerning requirements in guidance additional to those imposed by the rules no longer arose.
3. Assessment of evidence. It was for the ECO to consider the evidence and determine whether the requirements of the rules were satisfied. He was entitled, and obliged, to exercise his judgment. That judgment had to be exercised reasonably. The ECO relied on the volume and geographical pattern of documents, confirmed non-genuine documents, the lack of credibility in the explanation concerning a computer problem, concerns about information-management systems, and the financial institution’s downgraded rating.
4. Disposition. Against that background, it was reasonable for the ECO to conclude that the documents were unreliable and that the claimants had not established possession of the required funds. There was no irrationality or unlawfulness. Both judicial review claims were dismissed.

The judgment records that permission was granted by Mr C M J Ockleton, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 25 March 2011. The present court then determined the substantive judicial review claims at first instance. No prior judgment citation is stated.