The Court of Appeal hands down the judgment in Balajigari, Kawos, Majumder and Albert v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA CIV 673

The Court of Appeal hands down the judgment in Balajigari, Kawos, Majumder and Albert v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA CIV 673. According to the Press Summary issued by the Court of Appeal, the main points of principle decided by the judgment are as follows:

• The dishonest submission of false earnings figures to HMRC or to the Home Office is conduct which can, and generally will, justify refusal of leave to remain under paragraph 322 (5). Contrary to what is sometimes said (though not submitted by the appellants in this case), paragraph 322 (5) is not concerned only with cases where an applicant poses a threat to national security.
• It is not enough that the Home Office should suspect dishonesty. An application can only be refused under paragraph 322 (5) if the decision-maker makes an actual decision that any earnings discrepancies are the result of dishonesty on the part of the applicant.
• Before making such a decision the Home Office must notify applicants of its concern and give them a fair opportunity to offer an explanation.
• The fact that HMRC may have allowed a late amendment to a tax return without imposing a penalty does not preclude the Home Office from making a finding of dishonesty, and it is not obliged to ask HMRC whether any penalty has in fact been imposed.

Zane Malik appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in three of these linked appeals.

The Press Summary issued by the Court is here

The full judgment is here