The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in Baldha and Dhamodharan v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1494.
Mr Dhamodharan and Mr Baldha have three things in common. First, their applications for indefinite leave to remain were refused by the Secretary of State by reference to Paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules on the basis that there were material discrepancies in the earnings that they had claimed in their application for leave to remain as Tier 1 (General) Migrants and the earnings that they had declared to HMRC for the corresponding tax years. Second, they left the United Kingdom voluntarily following the Secretary of State’s decisions but challenged those decision by way of Judicial Review. Third, their applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review were refused by the Upper Tribunal prior to the guidance given in Balajigari v SSHD  EWCA Civ 673. In the light of Balajigari, the Secretary of State agreed to withdraw her decisions refusing the applications for indefinite leave to remain made by them, reconsider their applications by adopting the “minded to refuse” procedure and facilitate their return to the United Kingdom if, at reconsideration, their applications are successful. Mr Dhamodharan and Mr Baldha declined to settle the proceedings by way of consent and this resulted in the hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Mr Baldha and Mr Dhamodharan, at the Court of Appeal, sought quashing the Secretary of State’s decisions, declarations that they have leave to remain under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 and may return to the United Kingdom at any time on that basis, orders requiring the Secretary of State to facilitate their return to the United Kingdom pending the outcome of the reconsideration of their applications for indefinite leave to remain, damages for breach of their Article 8 rights, declarations that their presence in the United Kingdom is not undesirable and that they are entitled to indefinite or limited leave to remain, and, full costs.
The Court of Appeal, refusing the applications made by Mr Baldha and Mr Dhamodharan, held that:
The Court of Appeal’s judgment is available here.
Zane Malik appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department