Supporting Care Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor-licence revocation decision must be reached through a reasoned and fact-sensitive assessment. Published policy describing revocation as mandatory does not remove the Secretary of State’s duty to consider whether revocation is appropriate and proportionate in the particular circumstances.

Where a worker’s duties are said not to “match” the Certificate of Sponsorship, the question requires a qualitative assessment. It is not answered merely by counting the duties performed or omitted. A finding of dishonesty may be inferred from an unexplained discrepancy, but the decision-maker must consider the explanation and does not thereby impose a legal burden on the sponsor to disprove dishonesty.

The claimant, a domiciliary-care provider, challenged the revocation of its sponsor licence following an inspection concerning one sponsored employee. The Secretary of State concluded that the employee’s duties did not match the job description on her Certificate of Sponsorship and that the role was not a genuine vacancy.

The claimant alleged procedural unfairness, failure to address the correct questions, misconstruction of the sponsor guidance, irrationality and failure to assess the wider consequences of revocation. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State had lawfully and adequately reasoned the decision to revoke rather than downgrade the licence.

1. Procedural fairness. The interviews formed part of a routine inspection and were not conducted as an investigation into dishonesty. The allegations arose only after the interviews, in the subsequent compliance report and suspension letter. The claimant had a fair opportunity to make representations and provide evidence before the final decision. Ground 1 therefore failed.
2. Dishonesty. The decision letter, read as a whole, found that the role was not genuine, that the job description had been deliberately exaggerated and that this amounted to dishonesty. A discrepancy may justify suspicion and call for an explanation. If the explanation is absent or unconvincing, dishonesty may be inferred, but the sponsor bears no legal burden to disprove it. On the evidence, the inference was rational. Ground 2 failed.
3. Meaning of “match”. The policy had to be interpreted objectively and in context. A strict literal approach could cause revocation for minor discrepancies, while an excessively broad approach could undermine immigration control. Whether duties match the Certificate of Sponsorship requires a qualitative assessment. The omitted duties, involving care plans, liaison with team managers and allocation of shifts and rotas, were substantial or significant. Ground 3 failed.
4. Global assessment. The Secretary of State was entitled to maintain a firm approach to sponsor compliance, but the policy did not absolve her from engaging with the particular facts. A general statement that impact is always considered was insufficient. The decision did not demonstrably address the effect on the other sponsored workers and their families, vulnerable service-users, the claimant’s contracts or the proportionality of revocation where the dishonesty finding concerned one employee. Ground 4 succeeded.
5. The decision dated 26 June 2023 was quashed. The claim was allowed on Ground 4 only.