Malik Muhammad Wasif, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An application for leave to remain must comply with the applicable form and procedure requirements in the Immigration Rules. During the relevant period, Tier 4 applicants could use either an online process or the separate Print and Send process.

The online process required electronic submission of the completed application. The Print and Send process instead required the applicant to print, sign and post the completed form with the required documents. A direction to print and send did not convert that process into an online application. Non-compliance with the requirements for a specified form rendered the application invalid, and the Rules conferred no discretion to waive that non-compliance.

The applicant, a Pakistani national with leave as a student, sought further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant. The Secretary of State refused the application because the evidence did not establish the required maintenance funds for the relevant 28-day period.

In this judicial review, the applicant contended that he had submitted an online application on 28 February 2014. He argued that the Print and Send instruction was ambiguous and that any non-compliance could be waived. The Secretary of State contended that the application was made by post and received on 1 March 2014.

The central issue was the correct construction of paragraph A34 and the associated specified-form provisions of the Immigration Rules.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he submitted his completed application online. His inconsistent witness statements, the absence of the alleged confirmation email, and the documentary record supported the finding that he completed, printed, signed and posted the form with his supporting documents.

2. The Rules created two distinct routes. An applicant using the online route had to submit the completed application online and then provide mandatory supporting documents by post within the prescribed period. An applicant using the specified-form route had to use, sign and send the form with the mandatory photographs and documents in accordance with paragraphs 34A and 34B of the Immigration Rules.

3. The instruction to Print and Send was clear. It informed a reasonably attentive and informed student that the completed form had to be printed and sent to the Secretary of State. It did not amount to, or complete, an online application.

4. The Tribunal construed the Rules according to their natural and ordinary meaning, objectively discerned from their language. It rejected an interpretation founded on supposed policy considerations or one which would rewrite the Rules through purposive construction.

5. Failure to comply with the requirements for a specified form under paragraph 34A made the application invalid under paragraph 34C. The Rules and the applicable legal principles provided no discretion to waive the non-compliance. The applicant's alternative ground therefore failed.

The applicant was ordered, subject to representations within 14 days, to pay the Secretary of State's costs. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): On this substantive judicial review, the Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the Secretary of State's refusal and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Upper Tribunal procedural history: Permission to apply for judicial review had initially been refused on the papers. The applicant later sought an oral renewal hearing; the substantive hearing followed adjournments and directions concerning witness evidence.