A judge has accused the The Home Office of breaking the law and acting in a “nonsensical” way for trying to force two highly skilled migrants out of the UK by triggering sections of the Immigration Rules relating to terrorism provisions.
According to the support group, Highly Skilled Migrants, at least 1,000 highly skilled migrants applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK are wrongly facing expulsion from the UK under paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules for making legal amendments to their tax records.
Paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules is one of the “general grounds for refusal”, which states that applications should normally be refused if there is an “undesirability of permitting the person concerned to remain in the United Kingdom in the light of his conduct, character or associations or the fact that he represents a threat to national security”.
These new judgments will boost the campaign to halt the use of paragraph 322(5).
The judgments of the Upper Tribunal judge, Melissa Canavan, in respect of the two highly skilled migrants, will also strengthen the position of the 20 MPs (as well as a member of the House of Lords) who wish to establish separate pressure groups in order to persuade the Home Office to stop misusing the power conferred by such provisions.
As previously publicised by Gherson, the Law Society has suggested that the Home Office system was “seriously flawed” due to the fact that at least 50% of immigration appeals against Home Offices decisions succeeded. The support group for those against paragraph 322(5) say their success rate is far higher, at 75.3%. This percentage is in fact so high that it has caused legal experts to question whether the Home Office is cynically pursuing cases without merit.
In one of the recent rulings, Judge Canavan referenced a third Upper Tribunal judgment which criticised the Home Office for holding migrants responsible for the mistakes of their accountants, even when the accountants later wrote to the Home Office admitting their culpability.
Judge Canavan stated that “the mere fact that an applicant is responsible for his own tax affairs does not lead to the inexorable conclusion that an applicant has been dishonest”. She proceeded to state that if an applicant has presented evidence to show that he or she was not dishonest but merely careless, the Secretary of State is then presented with a fact-finding task and the evidence to be used against the applicant must be strong and cogent.
Please be aware that Gherson does not provide tax advice, however, should you have any queries regarding UK immigration or appeals issues, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please don’t hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.