Liral Veget Training And Recruitment Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor licence is a privilege carrying exacting duties of accuracy, record-keeping and cooperation. The Secretary of State may rely substantially on interviews and may require a sponsor to produce evidence showing that sponsored roles are genuine and properly described. Procedural fairness requires fair notice of the concerns and a fair opportunity to respond; it does not ordinarily require identification of every document that should be produced. In a judicial review, the court must respect the specialist decision-maker’s assessment of job duties and skill levels. Where the evidence shows that roles materially differ from their Certificates of Sponsorship and the sponsor fails to provide adequate evidence, the Secretary of State may infer deliberate exaggeration and revoke the licence.

The claimant held a Tier 2 Sponsor Licence and had sponsored four workers in roles described as managerial, accounting or human resources positions. Following compliance inspections and interviews, the Secretary of State concluded that the actual work was materially different and generally lower-skilled, that job descriptions had been exaggerated, and that requested payment evidence had not been supplied. The licence was revoked.

The claimant sought judicial review, alleging irrationality, procedural unfairness, misdirection concerning deliberate false information, and reliance on irrelevant matters. Permission was initially refused but was granted by the Court of Appeal on 8 December 2017, after which the claim was remitted to the Administrative Court.

1. Judicial review and job assessments. The Secretary of State was the primary decision-maker. Applying the principles in R (Raj and Knoll Ltd) v SSHD, the court recognised the importance of trust, accurate sponsor records, specialist expertise and a supervisory judicial role. The decision-maker was entitled to attach significant weight to the interviews and to the sponsor’s failure to provide corroborating written evidence.
2. The conclusion that the jobs materially differed from the descriptions in the Certificates of Sponsorship was reasonable. The descriptions suggested managerial or senior roles, whereas the evidence showed substantial routine administration and, in the case of the business development managers, frontline sales work. The small size of the business did not excuse an inaccurate description. A sponsor had to be scrupulously accurate and could not rely on isolated higher-level tasks to correct a misleading overall description.
3. Procedural fairness. There was no general obligation, outside a criminal investigation, to have interview records read back and verified by interviewees. The absence of such verification could affect the weight given to the records, but the interviewees understood the forms and the concerns were fairly communicated. The Secretary of State had to give fair notice of the concerns and a fair opportunity to respond, not specify every document that might assist. The Guidance empowered requests for documents but did not impose such a universal specification duty. The claimant had been given a focused opportunity to submit evidence and the process was fair.
4. Deliberate misdescription and alternative grounds. The wording of Annex 5(j) and 5(ae) required deliberate misstatement or exaggeration. The Secretary of State was entitled to infer deliberate exaggeration from the mismatch between the roles and the Certificates of Sponsorship, coupled with the failure to rebut the concerns. Requiring evidence from the sponsor did not unlawfully reverse the burden of proof; it reflected the scheme’s structure and the sponsor’s duties.
5. In any event, the failure to provide requested payment evidence constituted a separate mandatory ground for revocation, and discretionary grounds were also established. If necessary, section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 would apply. The judicial review claim was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal: Permission was granted on 8 December 2017 and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Court for hearing.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for judicial review was dismissed.