Naib Singh & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Tier 5 religious-worker applicant must satisfy the Immigration Rules by showing a genuine intention and capability to undertake the sponsored role. The fact that an applicant has lived apart from ordinary economic life does not exempt that applicant from these core requirements.

An entry clearance officer may reasonably examine the applicant’s knowledge of pay, accommodation and the duties of the role. The applicant bears the burden of showing compliance. A sponsor should ensure that an applicant is properly informed about the sponsored work, particularly where the applicant’s circumstances may limit that knowledge.

The applicants, Indian Sikh monks sponsored by a Southall Gurdwara, sought entry clearance as Tier 5 Temporary Workers in the religious-worker subcategory. The Entry Clearance Officer refused their applications on 11 November 2013. Administrative review decisions dated 6 January 2014 maintained those refusals.

Each applicant sought judicial review. They contended that the respondent had treated religious service as ordinary employment, failed to consider relevant supporting material, made inadequate enquiries, and relied on irrelevant matters. The central issue was whether the refusals were irrational or otherwise unlawful under the applicable Immigration Rules.

1. The applications for judicial review were refused. The administrative review decisions maintained the original refusals and were properly open to challenge. The original and review decisions were to be read together.

2. Under paragraph 245ZO(i) of the Immigration Rules, the Entry Clearance Officer had to be satisfied that each applicant genuinely intended, and was capable of, undertaking the role recorded in the certificate of sponsorship. Those were lawful requirements. They applied to religious workers even where they had renounced a material lifestyle.

3. The respondent was entitled to treat the applicants’ knowledge of their pay, accommodation and proposed duties as relevant to genuine intention and capability. Each had signed a form stating a specific annual salary but said in interview that the salary was unknown. The first applicant’s account also did not demonstrate an intention or capability to undertake all duties described in the advertised role.

4. The supporting letters did not require specific discussion. They did not identify either applicant individually or establish the particular capabilities required for the sponsored role. Sponsorship did not displace the Entry Clearance Officer’s duty to decide whether the Rules were met.

5. There was a general duty of enquiry, but it did not reverse the burden under the Rules. The respondent had made enquiries of the sponsors, and further enquiries about matters of which the applicants professed no knowledge were not required. Any shortcomings in the decision letters did not render the decisions Wednesbury unreasonable.

6. Permission to appeal was refused. Costs were to be assessed if not agreed.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The applicants’ judicial review challenges were refused in [2015] UKUT 538 (IAC).
• Administrative review: On 6 January 2014, the Entry Clearance Officer maintained the earlier refusals.
• Entry Clearance Officer: On 11 November 2013, each applicant was refused entry clearance as a Tier 5 religious worker.