MQ v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Under the Immigration Rules, a document submitted after an application may be considered only within the rule permitting late documents. That provision covers an omitted document in an existing sequence, not a document that was not yet in existence when the application was made. A later document is not brought within the exception merely because it records an earlier fact or could have been obtained earlier. A respondent’s request to send documents within seven working days does not, without more, waive the requirement to provide relevant documentation with the application.

An applicant sought leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant. His application was refused after he supplied a Companies House report and other documents after the application date. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal. A Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge dismissed a further appeal, and an Upper Tribunal Judge refused permission to appeal. The renewed application before the Court of Appeal challenged the treatment of the late document and related evidence under paragraph 245DDD(g) and Rule 245AA. The central issue was whether the late report fell within the exception for documents omitted from a sequence.

1. Disposition. Lady Justice Rafferty rejected the renewed application for permission to pursue a second appeal. The grounds passed neither of the applicable tests for a second appeal.
2. Late evidence. Rule 245AA required relevant documents to be submitted with the application and allowed later documents only within subparagraph (b). That exception concerned omission from an existing sequence. The report submitted here was not in existence on the application date and therefore was not an omitted document. The fact that it referred to an already existing state of affairs, or could have been obtained earlier, did not change its character.
3. Post-application correspondence. The caseworker’s email inviting submission within seven working days did not indicate that the respondent would disapply the requirement for relevant documentation to accompany the application. It did not require late documents outside Rule 245AA to be considered.
4. Other grounds. Complaints concerning evidential flexibility, the dates on bank statements and company documents, the adequacy of reasons and alleged errors of law did not establish a material error. The Court agreed with the identification of the case’s central issue and rejected the proposed challenge.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 6 May 2015, Lady Justice Rafferty rejected the renewed application for permission to pursue a second appeal.
2. Court of Appeal (permission stage). Longmore LJ refused permission on paper on 3 November 2014.
3. Upper Tribunal. The Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge dismissed the appeal on 11 April 2014. An Upper Tribunal Judge refused permission to appeal on 12 June 2014.
4. First-tier Tribunal. The first decision was promulgated on 12 February 2014 and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.