The Upper Tribunal hands down the judgment in R (AUMAS and MAMAS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKAITUR JR054662018 and dismisses the Judicial Review claim brought by family members of a Tier 1 (Investor) Migrant. The Upper Tribunal’s judgment deals primarily with proper construction of Paragraph 319H(f) of the Immigration Rules.
AUMAS and MAMAS were granted leave to enter as dependents of their father, who was granted leave to enter as a Tier 1 (Investor) Migrant. When they were seeking to re-enter the United Kingdom after a trip abroad, their leave to enter was cancelled at port on the basis that (among other things) they were studying in the United Kingdom in the circumstances where their father (and mother) was not physically present in this country. They sought to argue that the Immigration Rules do not require the parents to be physically present in the United Kingdom. The Upper Tribunal, dismissing the Judicial Review claim, held that “the plain and ordinary meaning of 319H(f) is to add an additional requirement” and “the additional requirement is not that the sponsor has a lawful right to be present in the UK; it is that they are (or will be) actually physically present in the UK”.
The Upper Tribunal’s judgment is available here.
Zane Malik appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.