Imran Idris, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Under paragraph 245AA of the Immigration Rules, evidential flexibility does not require the Secretary of State to seek information that an applicant was required, but failed, to provide. A document omitting mandatory information is not a document in the wrong format merely because the missing information might later be supplied.

Where a prescribed third-party bank letter must contain contact details, the absence of a landline number and any email address, without explanation, means that the specified document has not been provided. The Secretary of State is not obliged to enquire why those details are absent.

The applicant sought leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. His application relied on letters from his third-party sponsor’s bank. The letters omitted the sponsor’s landline number and any email address, although the Immigration Rules required those details.

The Secretary of State refused the application. The applicant brought judicial review, contending that the omission was minor, that the letters were in the wrong format for the purposes of paragraph 245AA, and that evidential-flexibility guidance required the Secretary of State to request the missing information.

The central issue was whether the omission engaged a duty or discretion to seek further documents or information.

1. The judicial-review claim was dismissed. The applicant had not supplied the specified third-party bank letter required by the Immigration Rules.

2. Paragraph 245DD required a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) applicant to meet the listed requirements. Paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A required the third-party letter to confirm full contact details, including a landline number and any email address. The submitted letters omitted mandatory information and gave no explanation for its absence.

3. Paragraph 245AA(b)(ii) concerns a document supplied in the wrong format. It does not cover missing information. A document which lacks required contact details is not thereby in the wrong format; it is not a specified document containing the mandatory information.

4. Paragraph 245AA did not oblige the Secretary of State to request the omitted details. The provision permits a request in defined circumstances, but paragraph 245AA(c) excludes a request where a specified document has not been submitted. It was rational to infer, absent an explanation, that the third-party sponsor might have had the omitted contact details but had not disclosed them.

5. The applicant could not rely on the earlier Upper Tribunal guidance in Rodriguez (Flexibility Policy) [2013] UKUT 00042 (IAC). The Court of Appeal had held that guidance to be wrong in law in SSHD v Rodriguez [2014] EWCA Civ 2. In any event, the earlier policy had ended before this application.

• Secretary of State for the Home Department: refused the applicant’s Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) application on 20 May 2013.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the ensuing judicial-review claim and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.