Interview Process and Procedural Unfairness

Interview Process and Procedural Unfairness


CategoryNews Author Zane Malik Date

The Upper Tribunal has published its judgment in R (Jivavichakul) v Entry Clearance Officer.

In this Judicial Review claim, Mrs Jivavichakul challenged the Entry Clearance Officer’s decision to refuse her application for entry clearance as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant, following a credibility interview. The key issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether the interview process was vitiated by procedural unfairness. It was argued on behalf of Mrs Jivavichakul that the interview process was unfair because she was given a very short notice of the interview, there was no attempt to re-phrase questions which she did not understand and she was not given an opportunity to address the Entry Clearance Officer’s concerns. The arguments made on behalf of Mrs Jivavichakul were based on the reasoning in Balajigari v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673, R (Mushtaq) v Entry Clearance Officer of Islamabad, Pakistan (ECO procedural fairness) IJR [2015] UKUT 224 (IAC) and R (Anjum) v Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad (entrepreneur business expansion fairness generally) [2017] UKUT 406 (IAC).

The Upper Tribunal held that the interview process was not in breach of the principles established in Balajigari, Mushtaq and Anjum and complied with the public law duty of procedural fairness. The Upper Tribunal, dismissing the Judicial Review claim, held that the Entry Clearance Officer’s decision was fair and rational.

Zane Malik appeared for the Entry Clearance Officer.

The Upper Tribunal’s judgment is available here.


Related Barristers


Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email