Haque v Secretary of State for the Home Department

At the permission stage, an alleged error in an entry-clearance decision will not justify an appeal where it is not realistically arguable that the error affected the result. A decision-maker may consider whether proposed visitor expenditure is proportionate to the applicant’s disclosed resources. Where claimed savings are unsupported and no separate savings fund is shown, comparing expenditure with the current-account balance is not arguably irrational. A factual mistake about accommodation may likewise be immaterial where it is one of several concerns supporting the credibility assessment. Permission should be refused where it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been significantly different without the alleged error.

The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, made successive applications for visitor entry clearance for himself and his dependants. The applications were refused because of concerns about the source and reliability of his funds, the proportion of proposed expenditure to available money, his family circumstances and an alleged discrepancy in a hotel booking. The final refusal, dated 9 November 2023, followed reconsideration after a pre-action protocol letter.

The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused permission for judicial review on the papers and after a renewal hearing. The applicant appealed against the second refusal. Permission had already been refused on the complaint concerning the sufficiency of the financial documents. The remaining issues were whether the hotel-booking error and the treatment of the applicant’s alleged savings disclosed an arguable and material error of law.

Application refused. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing held that the applicant had no realistic prospect of showing that the entry clearance officer erred in law.

1. The applicant’s savings argument had changed at the hearing. Counsel accepted that the applicant was not relying on a separate fund of savings, but on the total amount in his current account. The applicant had produced no separate savings-account evidence. The officer was therefore not arguably wrong to compare the proposed expenditure with the closing balance in the personal account.
2. The possible difference between assessing the balance at the date of application and at the date of decision was immaterial. The relevant proportion was approximately 70 or 72 per cent. It was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same without any error on that point.
3. The respondent accepted that the officer appeared to have made, or might have made, a mistake about the hotel booking. That mistake was nevertheless immaterial. It was only one of several concerns raised in the final decision, following a long sequence of refusals and further applications in which the applicant had been given opportunities to address earlier deficiencies.
4. The complaint that the officer had irrationally required further financial evidence was outside the scope of the present hearing because permission had already been refused on that aspect. Overall, it was not arguable with a realistic prospect of success that the officer had acted unlawfully. There was no compelling reason to grant permission.

1. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused permission for judicial review on the papers and, after renewal, refused permission again.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division), in [2025] EWCA Civ 826, refused the adjourned application for permission to appeal.