The High Court dismisses challenge to the Immigration Rules in R (Khajuria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The High Court dismisses challenge to the Immigration Rules in R (Khajuria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department


CategoryNews Author Zane Malik Date

The High Court (Mr Justice Martin Spencer) handed down its judgment in R (Khajuria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 1226 (Admin) and dismissed a challenge to the legality of Paragraph 46-SD(h)(i) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules.

Paragraph 46-SD(h)(i) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, as relevant, requires those who seek further leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrants to provide RTI, which is an acronym for “Real Time Information”, information about tax and other deductions is transmitted to HMRC by an employer every time an employee is paid. The Claimants sought to argue that this requirement was unreasonable and unlawful because their business, on advice on their accountants, had closed the PAYE scheme and were not required to provide RTI to HMRC.

The Claimants argued that this requirement was “partial and unequal in its operation between different classes – i.e. applicants who operate businesses that are required by HMRC to operate RTI and those that do not – and is therefore unlawful as offending against the principle laid down in Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91, as applied in ex parte Manshoora Begum [1986] Imm AR 38” [18]. The High Court, however, held that “the provision of RTI, as part of the detailed system for calculating points under the PBS, has a rational and legitimate objective” and that the requirement in not unreasonable or unlawful [25].

The High Court also held that there was no obligation on the Secretary of State for the Home Department to exercise his residual discretion in favour of the Claimants because “the system operates in such a way as to allow officials in the department to essentially ‘tick boxes’ in relation to any application and if a box cannot be ticked, for example because the required evidence has not been provided, then to reject the application” and that “this enables the system to be operated efficiently, expeditiously and strictly” [28].

Zane Malik appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The High Court’s full 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