Chaitanya Gangavarapu, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A judicial review court assesses the legality of an immigration decision on the material available to the decision-maker when the decision was made. Later evidence cannot retrospectively undermine that decision without a reconsideration by the Secretary of State. Direct observation of prohibited work, supported by witness accounts and the claimant’s evasive or unsatisfactory answers, may provide reasonable and cogent grounds for concluding that visa conditions have been breached. There is no general duty to disclose the operational intelligence behind an unannounced immigration visit. Where the statutory detention conditions are met, detention pending removal may lawfully follow from the breach decision.

The claimant, an Indian national holding skilled-worker leave restricted to employment with a named sponsor as a web designer and developer, was detained after immigration officers found him at a supermarket. Officers reported seeing him stacking shelves and serving customers, activities outside his permitted employment. The Secretary of State decided that he had worked in breach of his immigration conditions and detained him pending removal.

He sought judicial review, challenging the evidential basis of the decision, the alleged failure to disclose material and reasons, the availability of supplementary employment, and the lawfulness of his detention. He was released after two weeks. The central issue was whether the decision of 7 December 2023 was lawful on the material then available.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court assessed the lawfulness of the Secretary of State’s decision on the evidence available on 7 December 2023. The later statements, contracts and explanations relied upon by the claimant could not be used retrospectively to impugn that decision, particularly as no reconsideration had been sought.
2. The claimant’s leave permitted work for his named sponsor in the specified skilled occupation, and supplementary work only within the conditions stated in the visa. Shelf-stacking and serving customers in a supermarket were not work of the same description as skilled software employment. If the claimant was doing that work, it breached his conditions.
3. The evidence was plainly sufficient and was not arbitrary or irrational. It included an officer’s direct observation of the claimant stacking shelves, accounts from shop workers that he worked there and performed ordinary shop functions, his attempt to leave, evasive conduct, and answers which did not satisfactorily explain his presence or alleged website work. Employment contracts and statements of intention did not establish what he was actually doing at the time.
4. There was no general duty to disclose the operational intelligence or reasoning behind an unannounced immigration visit. The redaction of officers’ names was not unlawful or unfair in the circumstances. The disclosed visit material supported rather than weakened the Secretary of State’s case.
5. Since the breach decision was lawful, the statutory basis for detention pending directions and removal was available. The detention challenge therefore failed. The court also declined to entertain a rolling judicial review based on later events or evidence.

The judgment describes interim procedural steps within the same judicial review:

• High Court (Administrative Court): Ritchie J directed further evidence on 13 December 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Murray J refused interim release on 19 December 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Sweeting J granted permission for judicial review and expedited the claim.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Mrs Justice Foster dismissed the substantive claim.