SS (Nepal) v Entry Clearnace Officer

For paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, the relevant application is the application process as a whole, including the form and interview. A truthful answer given later does not cure an earlier dishonest representation or material non-disclosure. The rule requires honesty throughout the process. A voluntary correction may indicate that an earlier error was inadvertent. The court expressed no concluded view on the guidance under paragraph 320(11), but considered that provision a possible future ground of refusal despite the applicant’s minority.

A Nepali citizen sought entry clearance to join his mother, who held a residence permit as a domestic worker. The Secretary of State refused the application under paragraph 197(vi)(a) and separately under paragraph 320(7A), after finding that the application omitted his father and contained inconsistent information about his uncle. The First-tier Tribunal found deliberate dishonesty, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal was granted only on the paragraph 320(7A) issue. The central question was whether a truthful interview answer could cure an earlier dishonest representation in the application process.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The refusal under paragraph 197(vi)(a) remained unchallenged, so success on paragraph 320(7A) would not itself secure entry clearance. The court nevertheless considered the merits because a future refusal under paragraph 320(11) might remain possible.

1. The word application in paragraph 320(7A) refers naturally to the application process as a whole, not merely to the application form. The process may include both the form and an interview. This construction was consistent with the approach to the Immigration Rules explained in Odelola v SSHD [2009] UKHL 25.
2. A representation is false for paragraph 320(7A) only if it is dishonest, following the observations in Adedoyin v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 733. The First-tier Tribunal had made a factual finding of deliberate dishonesty, and that finding was not challenged.
3. A truthful representation at one stage cannot cure a dishonest representation or material non-disclosure at another stage. Otherwise an applicant could lie on the form and neutralise the deception by giving a truthful answer after it was discovered. A voluntary correction of an inadvertent error might instead demonstrate that there was no intention to deceive.
4. The court expressed no concluded view on whether the relevant guidance authorised refusal under paragraph 320(11) where paragraph 320(7C) exempted an applicant from paragraph 320(7B). It was sufficient that paragraph 320(11) could possibly provide a future ground of refusal notwithstanding that the applicant was a minor when the deception occurred. Order: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission was granted only on the paragraph 320(7A) issue. The appeal was dismissed: [2013] EWCA Civ 1206.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber): The appeal was dismissed and no error of law was found. No citation is stated in the judgment.
• First-tier Tribunal: The tribunal found that the applicant had made a dishonest false statement in the application.