Kaur, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department

In a document-based points-based immigration application, common-law fairness and Immigration Rule 245AA do not generally require the Secretary of State to disclose doubts about submitted documents or invite further documents, explanations, or corroboration. The applicant is responsible for selecting and submitting the supporting documents. The question whether reasonable steps have been taken to verify them may be assessed objectively. The assessment concerns the verification efforts as a whole, rather than an isolated unsuccessful attempt to contact one institution. The standard of fairness and verification remains the same whether the applicant can make a fresh application.

The claimant, an Indian national applying to remain as a Tier 1 (general) migrant, challenged refusal of her application under the points-based scheme. The Secretary of State awarded points for maintenance and age but rejected points relating to qualifications, previous earnings, and English language proficiency after verification checks concerning documents from a university, accountant, and client were inconclusive or unsuccessful.

The claimant alleged procedural unfairness and argued that Rule 245AA required the Secretary of State to disclose the concerns and give her an opportunity to respond. The central issues were the scope of fairness and whether reasonable verification steps had been taken.

1. Claim dismissed. The court held that the Secretary of State was entitled to scrutinise documents submitted in support of the points-based application. The signed consent form could not reduce the requirements of common-law fairness or Immigration Rule 245AA.
2. Rule 245AA(b) encapsulated the common-law requirement of fairness in its application to document verification. Even assuming that the court could determine for itself whether reasonable steps had been taken, rather than applying only a Wednesbury standard, the claim failed.
3. Fairness did not require the applicant to be given the results of the verification exercise, an opportunity to explain apparently dubious features of documents, or an opportunity to provide further corroborating documents. The procedure placed responsibility for selecting and submitting documents on the applicant. Requiring a further opportunity to supplement or explain them would create uncertain and potentially repeated obligations.
4. The Secretary of State had taken objectively reasonable steps. The bank details and transactions were verified. The accountant’s membership was checked, an email was unanswered, and the accounts appeared implausibly high. The client’s reference could not be confirmed despite repeated telephone calls. Although the university verification was inconclusive, that difficulty did not stand alone and did not make the overall verification process insufficient.
5. The court distinguished Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department, where an applicant was unaware that the Secretary of State had withdrawn his college’s sponsorship during consideration of his application. The present applicant was responsible for the documents submitted. The inability to make a fresh application after abolition of the Tier 1 route did not increase the required standard of fairness or the intensity of verification.