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

Immigration Rules requiring specified financial evidence must be applied according to their natural and ordinary meaning. A bank statement showing an insufficient balance is not a document in the wrong format merely because an earlier statement might have demonstrated compliance. The evidential flexibility policy addresses minor errors and omissions; it does not require the Secretary of State to obtain a different document containing information absent from the application. A standard acknowledgment letter sent to an applicant’s agent will not ordinarily create a legitimate expectation unless it amounts to an unequivocal representation, and the applicant must have relied on it or at least have been aware of it. Rigid application of the financial requirements is justified by the need for effective immigration control.

The claimant, a Chinese national and former Tier 4 student, sought judicial review of the refusal of her application for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 general student migrant. Her application was lodged one day after her existing leave expired, which meant that she had to demonstrate substantially greater maintenance funds. Her bank statement showed that the required balance had been reduced by an advance rent payment.

She argued that the statement was in the wrong format under paragraph 245AA of the Immigration Rules, that the evidential flexibility policy applied, and that a standard acknowledgment letter sent to her agents created a legitimate expectation that she would be invited to correct the deficiency.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant did not satisfy the financial requirements of the Immigration Rules and the Secretary of State was entitled to refuse the application.
2. Paragraph 245AA applied only where a specified document was in the wrong format, such as being arranged or presented incorrectly. It did not apply where the document contained information showing that the applicant lacked the required funds. The bank statement recorded the relevant balance on 9 September, and that balance was insufficient. A different statement ending on 3 September would have been a different document, not the same document in the correct format. The court therefore rejected the argument based on R (on the application of Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1861 (Admin) as applied to these facts, and relied on the need for a rigid application of the Rules identified in Miah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 261, together with R (on the application of Gu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1634.
3. The evidential flexibility policy was intended to address minor errors and omissions. There was no such error or omission: the submitted statement simply did not contain the requisite information. The policy therefore did not require the Secretary of State to invite the claimant to obtain a different statement.
4. The legitimate-expectation argument also failed. There was no evidence that the claimant had seen the standard letter sent to her agents. In any event, the letter did not contain an unequivocal representation that the Secretary of State would conduct the detailed review suggested by the claimant. The approach in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rodriguez [2014] EWCA Civ 2 did not assist her on these facts.